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

first let me say that i like film...

i just do not like the processing and printing part of that process.
i started in photography in the early 70's and did my own developing almost from the start. it was always a chore and brought me no real joy. but i did it without complaint.

i have also been shooting rangefinders right from the beginning, sometimes mixed in with an slr system, but rfs have been my constant and i much prefer them to all other camera types.

and then i got an rd1...my perfect camera. 'film' advance, rangefinder, zeiss lenses and no film processing. i could care less about full frame or crop factors, it is what it is and i love it. and i happen to like the black and white images i get with it, with little post processing.

i would sell my zeiss ikon, if it had not been a gift, and have just the 2 rd1 bodies and maybe another lens or 2.
 
Each brand of film has it's own special look and yes you can duplicate it with a digicam but then you can watch a sunset on the TV and walk around a beach in a computer game but does that really replace the real thing?

Add to that the whole process of rolling it, loading it, shooting it, processing it and having to wait to see the pictures you have taken adds an element of surprise to the whole procedure and makes it all feel so much more special than pointing a digi cam at an image and having it there immediately so that you can decide whether it's worth keeping or not or if it should be re-shot or not.
 
I shoot film and scan so that I can separate the shooting stage from the rest of the process. With digital, I was always tempted to chimp, which I found messed with my flow and my enjoyment of shooting. With film, I can't know how it turned out till I develop it, so I don't worry when shooting. All the worry comes later, mostly at the scanning and printing phase, although I'm getting better at those too.
 
i didn't read the whole thread so perhaps this has been said already, but if you don't know, then i see no good reason for film over digi.
 
Matt(1pt4) said:
I shoot film and scan so that I can separate the shooting stage from the rest of the process. With digital, I was always tempted to chimp, which I found messed with my flow and my enjoyment of shooting. With film, I can't know how it turned out till I develop it, so I don't worry when shooting. All the worry comes later, mostly at the scanning and printing phase, although I'm getting better at those too.
Click to expand...

You have just answered the/my question for me!!!

I've never worked out why I really like shooting film and scanning them... until now. Thanks Matt.
 
If film is your thing then go for it. Personally if find the whole dev, scan process a PITA. I haven't shot a roll of film for over two years and still have two undeveloped. If I had unlimited funds then I might shoot film and have it lab processed and printed. Its not because I think film is inherently better than digital, but because I prefer manual tools. If I look at my archive its easy to see that I (I repeat I) get consistently better results from digital than from film - and not because I shoot more I hasten to add. There are so many variables involved in making an image that in the end I think the differences in the medium used are moot. If the OP is finding film a pain, then I suggest he tries digital for a while to see if there are any real compromises in the process and final image.

Good luck with your choices.
 
Bob Michaels said:
May have not been your intent, but anytime the words "film" and "digital" appear in the same sentence, these responses always ensue.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I'm hoping to hear what others did when faced with the same conundrum as I am, which is, in different form, this:

I like and use film and film cameras for all the reasons everyone else has cited. Etc., etc. But, I shoot color, not b&w, and don't -- and won't -- do my own processing. One alternative that I've been using is scanning the negs processed at a shop. Another is to find a shop that will do the scanning. After scanning comes the tweaking. I use Photoshop and Lightroom. I'm not fond of that.

The nearest shop that I trust is 40 minutes away. Some folks use Costco for processing and scanning, but my nearest one is an hour away.

Yes, it's a hobby. But, the part between pushing the shutter and looking at a finished image is increasingly not much fun.

Anyone else been there?
 
I like the results I get from digital much better than the results I get from film. I like the process of shooting film cameras much better than the process of shooting digital cameras. Hence a dilemma, and I continue to do both.

/T
 
i think shooting film in the cameras i use (older RFs and just lately a 4x5) is a lot like fly fishing for me. sounds a bit incongruous i know. using sweet old RFs to make images is like using a fly rod to catch a fish. shooting my leica or casting a fly leads to something like little orgasms in my hands, elbows, shoulders. i like it, that's all. i just do.

i've got a stock of digi gear, lots actually. have shot many tens of thousands of frames (youth sports etc). i'm better technically with it, i'm sure. but i'm drawn to film and old gear. from a production standpoint, it's perverse.

maybe film for me is just more sensual.
 
I am not accomplished with PS/Aperture/Lightroom/GIMP, whatever. I have a suspicion that if I were to get my post-processing calibrated and somewhat automated, I would be much happier with the process. IOW, stick with (primarily) one colour film, know it intimately, and learn how to run the scanned images through my editor of choice in batch mode to get the results I want.

That said, a 40 minute one-way drive to a reliable processor is a challenge. I would say consider using the post, finding a source that will process and scan to high-res TIFF (or whatever your choice of file size/type), especially since local processing is fading anyway.
 
I've said this before, and I'm sure I've been ignored. If you want the easiest, decent post processing use Google's Picasa. I know it doesn't sound macho and doesn't have the cachet of all those hard to use programs like Photoshop and Lightroom, but ohhh how it does the job! Picasa also supports many raw formats now, so if you insist on raw files, you can still PP them in Picasa. It's literally one or two clicks to get magnificent images. Plus, it's free! When I sometimes am reduced to using Photoshop or Lightroom, I pull my hair out and understand why people don't want to get sucked into it. So, take my word - Picasa is the answer.

/T
 
btgc said:
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.
Click to expand...

+1 here.

I know my little B&W 6 strips will outlive any file or DVD...
 
Tuolumne said:
I've said this before, and I'm sure I've been ignored. If you want the easiest, decent post processing use Google's Picasa. I know it doesn't sound macho and doesn't have the cachet of all those hard to use programs like Photoshop and Lightroom, but ohhh how it does the job! Picasa also supports many raw formats now, so if you insist on raw files, you can still PP them in Picasa. It's literally one or two clicks to get magnificent images. Plus, it's free! When I sometimes am reduced to using Photoshop or Lightroom, I pull my hair out and understand why people don't want to get sucked into it. So, take my word - Picasa is the answer.

/T
Click to expand...

GIMP is free too. How do they compare? TKS.
 
I agree about the wedding shooters, and many of them BRAG to their clients about how they'll shoot one thousand images minimum at the wedding. Photojournalists didn't shoot that many images in a week when covering a war for Life Magazine! When I'm leaving a shoot I take it as a compliment when people remark "I didn't see you take any pictures".

The photographer who covers this part of Miami-Dade County is always complaining that the Miami Herald insists on digital but she wishes that she could just carry 2 or 3 Leicas like I do instead of a pair of DSLR's with huge heavy zooms.

A year or two ago I was awakened one Sunday morning by a barrage of phone calls "Hey Al, your picture is on the front page of the Herald!" I'd been photographing some sort of event, Memorial Day I think, outside of City Hall. In the foreground was the back of a woman's head with a small American flag stuck in her hair and beyond that was an upraised arm with a hand holding a Leica shooting over the crowd at the city officials. Everybody recognized my shooting style. There was no way I could have held a huge zoom equipped DSLR like that.

After I'd finished shooting I dropped the roll off at Walgreens, walked down the strip mall to the bagel shop, and by the time I'd finished breakfast Erma had my digital files on a CD and a small stack of 4x6 prints that could be shown to people without needing a laptop.
 
Last edited:
Why do wedding shooters post-process their own files? Seems like a waste. Out source it to India or pay a high school/college student to do it. Al, tell your friend to get a Lumix G1 and ditch the heavy dSLR and zoom. No one will know the difference except her arms and shoulders.

/T
 
You all ought to look at Al Kaplan`s blog, The price of silver. Last entry was his daughter in front of a 1950 TV set. You think you will have readable digi files in 50 years or will all be already lost ?

I do some stuff with digi. Have three Nikon digi cams. The battery grip and a new 50 1.8 Ais came Thurs from Cameta Camera for my D700. It is nice when you need a quick pic or a soccer game where a bunch of frames is wasted.

Full frame digi is grand cmpared to croppers. But it still not like a Leica M or even my R cameras. I can develope a roll and make a contact sheet in Epson scanner in less time than it takes to open the darkroom. Then I can pick the frame to print right from there. I can also scan it with a dedicated film scanner.

I have to admit ISO 1600 on the Nikon looks really really good.

So you all pick you poison, word processor or pencil, and have a ball. They both work.
 
"You think you will have readable digi files in 50 years or will all be already lost ?"

This has been discussed ad infinitum here. And the answer is:

Yes and No.

/T
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom