If I Scan Negs, Don't Do Darkroom/Prints, Then Why Film?

[Trius]

Because film originals are better than digital files.

 

[photobizzz]

When I shoot digital, and I have had several nice DSLRs and fast zooms; I just dont like my photographs near as much as when I pick up a rangefinder. That is why I have recently came back to RFs. It is the look of the film too. Just try to get the look a a Leitz 5cm Summarit with any digital camera / lens combo...it is not happening (IMHO) Mostly I think I take more time and think about the composition with a RF camera (or any film camera) probably because I have to meter (I use a hand held) Compose, focus, recompose, shoot. And the fact I have to either develop it myself or pay to have it developed is a factor, I just dont waste shots like with a 5 frame a sec DSLR.

 

[amateriat]

I started digitally scanning and printing a little over a decade ago, well before abandoning SLRs and returning to RFs. Far from finding it tedious, I actually like the scanning process, and what I can extract from the films I've been using all along. I've gotten the process pretty much down. Between this fact and my serious preference for the operation and workflow of film cameras, and rediscovering rangefinders, I have little motivation to shift to digital capture (although I do have a few digital cameras around for certain things).

Digital scanning has helped get detail out of my negs that I couldn't easily get via makeshift darkrooms, which were the sort I inevitably worked out of. I started looking at certain emulsions in a new light (pardon the unintentional pun). This alone was a boon. Then I started printing: only in the last few years have I been able to print black-and-white with the quality I insisted upon, but color was fantastic almost from the get-go, and has only gotten better. This is fun.

A lot of peole here have put it even better than I think I have, so I'll shut up for now and get back to...whatever I was doing before I opened up the laptop. 😉


- Barrett

 

[fixbones]

I just started shooting film again 2 months ago. Halfway through, i sold my dslr and am now 100% film

Why?
- i like the tactile interphase i get with film
- B & Ws are better with film....yes even with C41
- i don't develop my own.....yet. Hopefully by next year
- There is something 'real' that i get with film images (even scanned) as compared to digital images - this is just i see and feel. Your opinion may vary.
- with film, the camera, lens, film, developer all contributes to how the final image turns out to be and i have fun playing with them. With digital.... just get the best sensor you can afford the either aperture/CS4/lightroom etc......

Just my 2 aussie cents and having said all that, i am pretty sure i'll make my way back to digital again someday but for now. Film is fun for me ;D

 

[Ducky]

Unless you are shooting and processing your own BW I see no point in shooting/scanning film or hard photos..
On the other hand, shooting, processing and working with BW is a satisfying exercize.
On the other hand I did find scanning film a pain in the arse and sold the film scanner. I have resurected the darkroom just a bit and make/scan proof sheets of my MF film. I do not shoot 35mm anymore.
On the other hand for color I use a ps digi.
On the other hand. . .only you know best.
BTW, processing BW is too simple to overlook.

 

[Al Kaplan]

"If it ain't broke don't fix it!"

 

[Al Kaplan]

"I wanna go full frame!" is so true! With ultra-wide lenses on your Leica you get the full 24.5 X 37.5mm frame on film! (The image sneaks under the film gate.)

 

[rya]

It is all about the process. My process is shooting film and getting prints from it however I can (either scanning color or wet printing black and white). I think it works best for me, I like it most, and so I am more prodigious with it. I went primarily digital and came back. Why use charcoal or paint instead of ink?

I say figure out what you make work best with and what you enjoy doing and then do that first. Great work can be made with anything, and "quality" in terms of the accuracy of reproduction of an image matters less than the personal process of creating something.

 

[__hh]

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.

More reason to do what Keith and most of us have done, do your own real B&W processing at home.

 

[Doug]

I do the same, mostly, and it's the cameras. Specifically, the user interface on most digital cameras annoys me because I didn't grow up using videogames (indeed never have used one). 🙂 The M8 is easier than others I've seen.

 

[Al Kaplan]

The hardware involved lasts forever and is dirt cheap on the used market these days. Enlargers, lenses, easels, safelights, timers, tanks and reels don't go out of style. You might have to buy a new bulb or two on rare occasion (keep spares on hand!) but beyond that it's just film, paper, and chemicals for an all wet process work flow. You'd still have to buy special paper and ink cartridges for a digital work flow.

 

[btgc]

I know this is more imagination, though I like film strips in sleeves as backup for scanned files. Sure digital pictures can be stored securely and be fine without film backup.

 

[dmr]

The various films are sooooo different!

With digital, you're stuck with the same "film" for the life of the camera.

And if you give me this "simulate Kodachrome in Photoshop" bull-doodoo, you just don't get it! 🙂

 

[mfogiel]

For me, first of all, it is because of B&W and then it is because of the cameras you can use which just feel much better than digital and are always ready. If you want to enjoy the process more, develop yourself for more control and cleaner negs, and try printing on some of the matte' fine art papers in advanced B&W on something like Epson 2400 or 3800.

 

[Chris101]

I prefer film because it is more difficult, and time consuming than shooting digital.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Digital is the "Life-size inflatable doll with features you won't believe!" of photography.

 

[Nando]

Digital is the "Life-size inflatable doll with features you won't believe!" of photography.

I think that says it all. 🙂

 

[Bob Michaels]

So... I don't intend to launch a film vs. digital thread, so please don't go there.

May have not been your intent, but anytime the words "film" and "digital" appear in the same sentence, these responses always ensue.

 

[rbiemer]

I shoot film because I like the cameras that use film MUCH better than the digital cameras I have owned/used.
And digital is, at best, a poor analogy for film.
Rob

 

[raid]

I can choose between digital camera and using film in a camera followed by scanning the negatives. I prefer using film. For me, it is about what I like to do and not what I have to do, and I happen to enjoy using film cameras. When I pick up a RF camera or a classic SLR like a Contarex, the feel is quite different from a digital camera. Is it the more economical approach for what I do? Most likely it is not. Is it more a hobby than a job? Yes, it is,and therefore I am doing what makes me more happy.

The thread started with a specific situation explained. Someone who does not do any printing faces such a question often. If I don't print anythng and if I don't request prints from the film used, am I really getting something out by using a film camera? I say, yes.