If you shoot 35mm film and scan, would love your input.

Gerry M said:
To me it seems that if you don't want to enjoy the process of developing and scanning, then why not just stick to digital? With film, I develop, scan at low res, select the keepers (very few), rescan at max res for those at my scanners max res. Print on R2400. Select the best and to the darkroom for analog printing. I shoot both film and digital. I doubt if the camera (Leica or Holga) makes any difference in choosing to process your own film, as it's basically the same with whatever you choose to shoot. Maybe I'm over simplifying. Just my thoughts.
Click to expand...

Because its more fun and rewarding to make a print in a darkroom. With image stabilization, electronic view finders, articulating screens, super sharp lenses, HDRs and mind blowing image quality, I have all, it can just can take the dang fun out of it.
After a few straight days of shooting digital I just need to frickin' unplug so to speak. Don't get me wrong I would take an M9 any day but that certainly wouldn't stop me from shooting film. I always thought the Leica experience was all about film anyway. I really was surprised when Leica came out with the M8. I feel there will always be a film market and ditching their film line would be a mistake.
There is nothing like standing back and looking at a nice picture I have taken with no computer or software help. It's not a film vs digital thing. Its one thing helps me appreciate the other kind of thing.
Plus take a couple of great digital shooters, Trey Ratclif and Tommy Hawk, both really are good. But they fire so many shots their work, to me is over whelming and redundant. Slow down, try something new. Where is the fun in HDRs where you stack ten crappy pictures to make one good one, do it right in the field is a better craft.
 
Godfrey said:
Price of a pro-pack (50 rolls of 36 exp) of Ilford XP2 Super is about $300 @ B&H Photo. That's 1800 exposures. Processing negatives at a good lab will run about $5 per roll, for another $250. That comes to about $0.31 per exposure.

My average for the past eight years of photography has been about 14,000 exposures per year. That's $4300.00 for film and processing per year, never mind any additional costs of scanning and the time involved in making scans. Yeah, I can cut the costs some by buying Tri-X in 100' rolls, spooling it myself, and processing it myself. But then look how much more time I'm spending in the process.

You might consider that "an awful lot of film", but it's what I do. I have an M4-2 and I love shooting with it, but I know that it will be much more expensive to use the way I can use the M9, and the cost of media alone will pay the difference in cost between the M9 body and the M4-2 body in less than two years if I shoot the same way with it. And the following two years, the M9 is free where I'm still paying for film for the M4-2...
. . .
Click to expand...

An alternate scenario (and by no means better or worse)

I use film for my professional documentary work.

I shoot a relatively small amount of frames - only around 70 rolls on my last major project which spanned 2 years. About 1250 frames a year. That's under $400 a year given the above numbers (.31 per frame - which is actually a little higher than my own costs), but lets say $800 with good contact sheets. I then scan about 10% of what I shoot, dust and correct 5%, and around .008% eventually get published (more than once, God willing). Assuming my 20 year old film body and 40 year old lens have long since amortized, at this rate, I could buy a new $3200 wonder SLR every 4 years - which is about par for the profession. 8 years for an M9. I'd probably shoot more with a digi, BUT I'd probably also hover around the same number of published photos - a mag is not going to take twice as many just because I shot twice as many.

So the way I shoot, and with my personal costs, it's 12 of one, a dozen of the other, and I get to concern myself with the aesthetics and shooting experience as the defining factors for my decision - which you can't really put a number on.
 
Thanks everyone, I have decided to stick with my M8 until the M10 comes out and the M9 drops in price to hopefully around $4K-$4.5K. Im coming to this decision because I am absolutely new to darkroom/developing/scanning and it still sounds like its a hassle for even the experienced people to produce high quality prints.

I get that film and slide film is unmatched vs. digital. Trust me, I see it myself. BUT I only really see it when I compare two of the same prints. Just like sharpness, resolution, and iso performance, the difference just wont matter to me in street photography. I look at Winogrand, Capa, HCB, and Alex Web and I know its not about film vs digital. Its about emotion or no emotion. Thats what I will practice "developing" in my digital photography. I have fallen in love with the photographic process and not the end print. I would consider myself an intermediate to advanced digital workflow user and with a child on the way, I know I would be taking on just too much at this time.

Thanks again everybody. It really helped me with my decision.
My website is :http://www.waltershin.com
Im still learning everyday and hope to get better.

Im planning a solo trip of a lifetime to India and wanted to come to a decision before I go. Im so lucky I have a wife that supports my passion and is letting me do this before I settle down to become a family man.
 
cosmonaut said:
Because its more fun and rewarding to make a print in a darkroom. With image stabilization, electronic view finders, articulating screens, super sharp lenses, HDRs and mind blowing image quality, I have all, it can just can take the dang fun out of it.
After a few straight days of shooting digital I just need to frickin' unplug so to speak. Don't get me wrong I would take an M9 any day but that certainly wouldn't stop me from shooting film. I always thought the Leica experience was all about film anyway. I really was surprised when Leica came out with the M8. I feel there will always be a film market and ditching their film line would be a mistake.
There is nothing like standing back and looking at a nice picture I have taken with no computer or software help. It's not a film vs digital thing. Its one thing helps me appreciate the other kind of thing.
Plus take a couple of great digital shooters, Trey Ratclif and Tommy Hawk, both really are good. But they fire so many shots their work, to me is over whelming and redundant. Slow down, try something new. Where is the fun in HDRs where you stack ten crappy pictures to make one good one, do it right in the field is a better craft.
Click to expand...

I was trying to address the OP's concerns about time spent on the film processing, post image taking. To me, it seemed that he may not have the driving force to pursue film processing. For the record, I have 3 enlargers and 2 scanners. I process (b&w) my own 35 & 120 film and prefer the analog process. And, I use digital for color.
gm
 
rf1552 said:
.................... and it still sounds like its a hassle for even the experienced people to produce high quality prints.

I get that film and slide film is unmatched vs. digital. Trust me, I see it myself. ..............................
Click to expand...

I certainly respect the decision you have made for yourself. Here's hping for much success. I only want to add:

I can make the highest quality print on my Epson from a scanned neg in normally 5 minutes, 10 tops. Over 95% of the time, my first print is also the final. I do have about 10 years in the wet darkroom printing and just over 10 years outputting digitally.

I wish I could agree that film is unmatched vs. digital since I shoot film. But I have had to admit they are at least equal with possibly digital taking the lead with color. Two years ago I attended an exhibit opening where there were about 40 16x20 prints. I knew the photographers and knew about half the prints were shot on 6x7 chrome and the other half captured digitally. I really wanted the prints from film to be better since I was shooting a 6 month project on 6x7 Fujichrome. But I finally had to admit that I could not tell if each print was captured on film or digitally.
 
Looks like your made your decision already which is good.

Personally I shoot 35mm film (and 120, also 4x5), develop my own BW (95% of all my photography is BW) and scan all formats myself (Coolscan4000ED / SA-30 & V700). On average I expose 15 rolls 135-36 per month that I develop on average every second or third day and scan the following day(s) after the film have dried. Having no fixed darkroom, I develop my films in the (small) kitchen and occasionally do some wet-printing in the night in our bathroom.

If I would be in the situation to be no longer able to develop
films by my own I would switch to a M9 for 135 (I now use M7, M4-2, M4-P) and be done with the other film-sizes (getting 120 scanned in Japan is crazy expensive and I guess for 4x5 it is the same)

If I would focus on color (significantly more than now), I also would switch to the M9.
 
Gerry M said:
I was trying to address the OP's concerns about time spent on the film processing, post image taking. To me, it seemed that he may not have the driving force to pursue film processing. For the record, I have 3 enlargers and 2 scanners. I process (b&w) my own 35 & 120 film and prefer the analog process. And, I use digital for color.
gm
Click to expand...

I wasn't aiming this at anyone. I didn't read all the comments, sorry. But a little one on the way and starting a new family for now he probably is doing the right thing. I think doing both film and digital is a good practice if you can. I see you have a Mamiya. I have a 7. Godfery also raises a point, cost of film, a darkroom can get costly, most of my equipment was given to me. I had stacks of out of date paper to practice with. It's not for everybody.
 
I use 35mm (Leica M6TTL + others), 120 (Hasselblad 500c/m and Rolleiflex) and 5x4 (Wista). All 3 scan very well on my Epson V750. Of cours, I'd love a drum scanner but budget won't stretch to that. Once scanned, I use PS CS3 and Nik Silver Efex Pro to get the look I want. Much more fun than digital, though I like using my D700 as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom