wgerrard
Veteran
I'm curious about your thoughts on this scenario: Use film, pay a shop to process it, stuff negatives into a scanner, and then fiddle with Aperture/Lightroom/Photoshop/whatever.
That's what I do, and I'm wondering if it's worth the time and money. I don't do darkroom work or have prints made. I'm quite happy to look at my stuff on a monitor screen.
The only thing that isn't digital in this mix is the film and the camera.
So... I don't intend to launch a film vs. digital thread, so please don't go there. But, I am honestly interested in the comments of any others who have wondered the same thing, and what they did about it.
(How some money gets spent in the near future is behind this question.)
That's what I do, and I'm wondering if it's worth the time and money. I don't do darkroom work or have prints made. I'm quite happy to look at my stuff on a monitor screen.
The only thing that isn't digital in this mix is the film and the camera.
So... I don't intend to launch a film vs. digital thread, so please don't go there. But, I am honestly interested in the comments of any others who have wondered the same thing, and what they did about it.
(How some money gets spent in the near future is behind this question.)
Pablito
coco frío
To get grain without faking in in photoshop?
Beats me.
Beats me.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I like rangefinder cameras, especially for some applications, and I can't afford a digital RF.
I like using my OM-4T, and nobody makes anything like that in digital.
I get better (to my eye) black and white results pretty much straight off a film scan (even converting some colour films to B&W) than I can easily get from converting digital to B&W. I might be able to establish some post-processing scheme that gets me results I like from digital but why work that hard if I can scan film and it's more-or-less just there?
Just a few of the things that immediately occur to me. YMMV and all that, of course.
...Mike
P.S. Another one: nobody (yet) makes a smallish digital P&S that does the things I like about my film P&S cameras.
I like using my OM-4T, and nobody makes anything like that in digital.
I get better (to my eye) black and white results pretty much straight off a film scan (even converting some colour films to B&W) than I can easily get from converting digital to B&W. I might be able to establish some post-processing scheme that gets me results I like from digital but why work that hard if I can scan film and it's more-or-less just there?
Just a few of the things that immediately occur to me. YMMV and all that, of course.
...Mike
P.S. Another one: nobody (yet) makes a smallish digital P&S that does the things I like about my film P&S cameras.
Last edited:
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
If you shoot color, you may be fine going digital. I think digital is excellent for color, but black and white is not the same. Converting a color image to BW in photoshop and getting good tonality is hard and with some digital captures you just can't get it to look good, in my experience. This applies to color digital images or scanned color shots converted to BW.
Another thing is the cameras themselves. Some of us prefer old mechanical simple cameras, which are not made in digital versions.
Another thing is the cameras themselves. Some of us prefer old mechanical simple cameras, which are not made in digital versions.
Bassism
Well-known
I agree with what has been said. There is nothing like my M2 in digital (except in some ways the M8 and RD-1, but they're rather out of my price range.) Also, a digital camera with handling and feel like my F100 would be equally out of my price range.
In b/w, I don't think there is any digital camera capable of doing the things I do with Tri-X, at least not without significant work in post.
In colour, I find I enjoy the signature of various films. To get a digital shot to mimic Ektar for example would also take significant post work.
Mostly though, I just -like- film. I used to use digital for colour and film for b/w, but recently I sold my digital camera and have switched to film exclusively. It really doesn't make sense, but some things in life are just that way.
In b/w, I don't think there is any digital camera capable of doing the things I do with Tri-X, at least not without significant work in post.
In colour, I find I enjoy the signature of various films. To get a digital shot to mimic Ektar for example would also take significant post work.
Mostly though, I just -like- film. I used to use digital for colour and film for b/w, but recently I sold my digital camera and have switched to film exclusively. It really doesn't make sense, but some things in life are just that way.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
For me the routine of what you describe requires that I process my own film. I used to shoot black and white C41 and have it processed at the local Kodak 1hr then scan it at home ... somewhere along the line (here) I got talked into processing my own film and it changed my attitude and my level of involvement with photography totally. It seriously was the best thing that has happened to me and I supect that if I hadn't made that step the darkside (digital) would have swallowed me up eventually as it has many others.
Scanners are great tools IMO ... they allow you to do things with film that would be time consuming and impractical in a conventional wet darkroom process and mine has become an important part of my final output. I now use MF and LF regularly alongside 35mm but probably wouldn't have discovered the joys of these other formats if I'd stayed where you currently appear to be. The first time I scanned a 4x5 negative I nearly fell out of my chair in shock ... even on a computer monitor LF can blow your socks off!
As for your question ... "is it worth all the time and money?" I can only say ... "yes, yes, yes!"
Scanners are great tools IMO ... they allow you to do things with film that would be time consuming and impractical in a conventional wet darkroom process and mine has become an important part of my final output. I now use MF and LF regularly alongside 35mm but probably wouldn't have discovered the joys of these other formats if I'd stayed where you currently appear to be. The first time I scanned a 4x5 negative I nearly fell out of my chair in shock ... even on a computer monitor LF can blow your socks off!
As for your question ... "is it worth all the time and money?" I can only say ... "yes, yes, yes!"
charjohncarter
Veteran
Chris is right (especially, when he mentions B&W and mechanical cameras) , but I would slightly, and I mean slighty, disagree with him on one point. There are some color films that do give you something that digital can't: Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Reala, Velvia, even Kodak Elite and I'm sure the list goes on; C-41 and Chromes. this is Fuji's cheapest film, just try to do this with digital:
If you can do this with digital more power, I tried 5 seconds after this shot (with my DSLR), and as Macawber said: horrible (Fuji Cheap, Olympus Trip35).
and:
Fuji Reala, Balda Hapo 66e (120)
If you can do this with digital more power, I tried 5 seconds after this shot (with my DSLR), and as Macawber said: horrible (Fuji Cheap, Olympus Trip35).
and:
Fuji Reala, Balda Hapo 66e (120)
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
There is no objective answer to the question of which way for you to go. If you like the look of film, then you best shoot film. If you are happy with digital, that's the way to go. I shoot both and like both.
wgerrard
Veteran
Same here, which just adds to my frustration.
I shoot color with an R4M. I like it. But, film costs what it costs, then I drive 40 minutes to give it to a shop, drive back the next day and pay them about 9 bucks a roll for the negs, and take them home and feed them to the scanner.
That's an increasingly annoying, cumbersome and not-inexpensive procedure.
jpressman
Well-known
I don't know about you, but I work with computers for my vocation and want to get away from that (to the extent possible) for my avocation. Film has a reality to it that digital files don't have for me, even though I scan too. And I just like using film cameras.
Jeff
Jeff
chikarin
Member
the same goes for me, i just develop films and scan them, logically totally pointless.
but it is the process itself that makes it special. the limited nature of film, shooting 1 by 1, only finding out what the results are at a later point, developing the film with your favorite chemical is all an experience that digital cannot provide.
of course, there are some things that only digital can do, so i do both happily.
but it is the process itself that makes it special. the limited nature of film, shooting 1 by 1, only finding out what the results are at a later point, developing the film with your favorite chemical is all an experience that digital cannot provide.
of course, there are some things that only digital can do, so i do both happily.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
If I never went beyond the monitor screen, I would probably shoot digital. It is quick and easy plus the digital P&S cameras are cheap enough and up to the monitor only task.
But I print. That is my output. Even though I print scanned negs on an Epson, film is the thing that works best for me.
But you need to do what works best for you.
wgerrard
Veteran
I used to spend all my time in front a monitor, too, and then I had the sense to retire.
Now, I still spend hours with a computer and no one pays me for it.Believe me, I agree with what you and others say about film. That's why I use it. It's just the rigmarole involved in using it that's wearing on me.
Maybe I'm just grumpy and indecisive tonight.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I shoot film, make prints, and scan the prints if I need an image for the web.
http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
Sometimes I even scan contact sheets and crop out one or more frames for web use. including the perforations, dust spots, and red China marker crop marks...LOL
http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
Sometimes I even scan contact sheets and crop out one or more frames for web use. including the perforations, dust spots, and red China marker crop marks...LOL
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
This is HP5+ shot with a forty year old camera and developed in a mixture of instant coffee and sodium carbonate ... then scanned on a V700 Epson which changed the image totally by attempting to compensate for the under developing caused by the incorrectly mixed cafenol solution ... the colour cast was the scanner's work which when scanning in colour negative mode can do odd things to monochrome film!
I know we're trying not to have a digital verses film discussion here but some things just can't be done digitally ... or if they can I personally don't have the skills!
I know we're trying not to have a digital verses film discussion here but some things just can't be done digitally ... or if they can I personally don't have the skills!
slm
Formerly nextreme
I used to spend all my time in front a monitor, too, and then I had the sense to retire.
Believe me, I agree with what you and others say about film. That's why I use it. It's just the rigmarole involved in using it that's wearing on me.
Maybe I'm just grumpy and indecisive tonight.
Have you considered developing yourself? It's easy, very cheap and can add to the hobby (diff. developers/film combinations).
Cheers.
benlees
Well-known
I shoot film and have absolutely no reason to. I use medium format mostly and scan on a V700. Basically a waste of time according to most. I don't print very often and when I do I pick them up at Costco! These days I use b&w almost exclusively. I develop my own film- I can have the good ones on my computer a couple of hours after they are shot- which (almost) negates the quickness of digital.
I prefer film cameras. A $100 Minolta Autocord can take amazing pictures and is fun to use. A Mamiya 7 with the 80mm costs less than some entry level dslrs. A lot less. Pretty nice negatives, too.
I'll compromise: when there is a digital Fuji GA645 for around $1000 then goodbye film!
Until then if I decide to learn how to wet print or get a couple of drum scans I still have those big ol' negatives.
I prefer film cameras. A $100 Minolta Autocord can take amazing pictures and is fun to use. A Mamiya 7 with the 80mm costs less than some entry level dslrs. A lot less. Pretty nice negatives, too.
I'll compromise: when there is a digital Fuji GA645 for around $1000 then goodbye film!
Until then if I decide to learn how to wet print or get a couple of drum scans I still have those big ol' negatives.
wgerrard
Veteran
I've considered it. Bought and read some books, even. But, for various reasons, it isn't gonna happen.
Besides, I'd still scan the negatives. The way I look at my images, and, importantly, the way I get them in front of other people to look at, is digitally.
I'll reiterate, I agree with everything that's been said about the rewards of film, quiet and simple cameras, etc., and that those can't be duplicated with a digital camera. It's just, as I said, that the process is beginning to be a game of diminishing returns for me. Hence... frustration: Going completely digital would resolve that, but eliminate the Good Things that come from using film.
dirojas
dirojas
I have just started to developing myself my BW pictures. I have been shooting digital the last four years, and have become reasonably proficient in the digital darkroom area. However, there is no way I can get the tonalities of my scans in BW out of my Canon 30D. This is one point.
But the most important for me is been able to use these beautifully small cameras (I shoot a Leica III - Summar), to learn the craft involved in getting the negatives right, to learn about the film itself, and to concentrate in the shot rather than in beeps or lights.
There is a tactile feel of the entire process that I found very interesting. In addition, come one, its your hobby, it doesn´t have to be logical, it only has to be fun. IMHO
But the most important for me is been able to use these beautifully small cameras (I shoot a Leica III - Summar), to learn the craft involved in getting the negatives right, to learn about the film itself, and to concentrate in the shot rather than in beeps or lights.
There is a tactile feel of the entire process that I found very interesting. In addition, come one, its your hobby, it doesn´t have to be logical, it only has to be fun. IMHO
historicist
Well-known
I do this too, to be honest I just like it. I prefer using older cameras, and no digital camera I can afford or want to carry around with me can give me what my Rollei gives me, even if it does just end up as a small jpeg on flickr.
It is a pain, and time consuming as you say. But I'm not sure digital would save that much time. Whenever I've had a digital camera (and used it for photography rather than pictures for ebay etc.) I took so many more pictures simply because I could that the sorting and editing were just as tedious as scanning, yet ended up with no more keepers than if I'd used a roll of 35mm.
It is a pain, and time consuming as you say. But I'm not sure digital would save that much time. Whenever I've had a digital camera (and used it for photography rather than pictures for ebay etc.) I took so many more pictures simply because I could that the sorting and editing were just as tedious as scanning, yet ended up with no more keepers than if I'd used a roll of 35mm.