certifiable
Established
I shoot digital when asked to photograph a band, way easier and I shoot a lot during a night.
When I'm just out shooting for fun and for myself I shoot film. For some reasonit's more fun and satisfying. And I don't mind the scanning part, I just put on some records(yes vinyl), make some coffee and relax. Great sunday afternoons
When I'm just out shooting for fun and for myself I shoot film. For some reasonit's more fun and satisfying. And I don't mind the scanning part, I just put on some records(yes vinyl), make some coffee and relax. Great sunday afternoons
rf1552
Member
The other thing that scares me about the digital M's is that I saw an m8 that was dropped from about 9 inches from the ground. Resulted in a jammied shutter and over $1K to repair. Not sure how much a replace would have cost. Guessing even more. I cant afford that type of repair costs.
Borghesia
Well-known
For me scanning (Coolscan 5000) is part of the fun, to see the images reveal themselves from the negatives.
rf1552
Member
Same for me when I import into lightroom. But I also dont have to import one raw file at a time and it doesn't take 5 min per file. I only say this because its what I heard on these forums maybe its grossly inaccurate.
I also use the lightroom gallery view as my digital contact sheets. I can flag, tag, catalog to my desire.
Im starting to think the M9 or keep the M8 until the M9 hits below $5k by the end of the year.
Gerry M
Gerry
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.
certifiable
Established
You don't have to shoot film, you can just stick to digital. If you don't like spending the extra time on film, then just don't.
Film just takes extra time (if you develop and scan yourself) and if you don't think it's worth it or if you don't want to... Just stick with digital.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
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...
There are differences in imaging character and quality between digital and film mediums, but "better" and "worse" are too broad to connect to them. They simply look different until you know the medium and what to do with it to obtain what you want from it. If you like one more than the other, that usually means that you're comfortable with the one you like and haven't learned the other well enough yet.
I'd have to say that on the basis of sensitivity, resolution and editability, digital capture with an M9 blows away anything I can get out of the M4-2 unless I go to the long-discontinued Agfa APX25 film I still have in the freezer and work very hard at it. Certainly nothing I'm going to shoot with ISO 400 B&W film or ISO 100 color film is going to match what I get out of the M9 at ISO 800.
Been through all this many many times. I love working with film ... it has charm and a beautiful imaging signature. But I make far more, and better, images working with digital capture now, to the point that given a choice, I'd dump all the film cameras in a second and just keep the M9, three lenses, two batteries, and a brace of 16G memory cards if I had to. More photography, less tedium in managing media this way.
Araakii
Well-known
I used Nik Efex pro so it already saved me a lot of time but very often I still had to adjust some stuff to be happy with the look.
rf1552
Member
Godfrey,
Very well thought out and makes sense to me. I also love photography where I could easily shoot the same amount as you. I guess I should just insure my M9 so I can use it freely without thinking how much it will cost if I drop it just once.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Scanning is not a problem if you simply edit first then scan only the real winners. I shoot 4 rolls of film, edit the negs on a light table, and may select 5-6 that I will scan, post process and proof print. That is immensely faster than scanning 140 frames then editing out 135 of them.
I have absolutely no problem editing from negs instead of positives. In fact, I get more info from the neg than I could from a 2nd generation. So not only it is much faster, it is better.
TEZillman
Well-known
rf1552,
I've been shooting 35mm and scanning for about eight years now. I bought a M7 in 2004 and didn't really want to switch to digital when I had made such a substantial investment. I purchased a Nikon D200 since then, but still really like using the M7. I use a Minolta ScanDual IV with Vuescan and IPhoto software on a Mac. I've picked up a few tricks over time that might be helpful.
When scanning negatives, I will start by scanning a blank, unexposed frame on the roll and adjusting the scanner so that the scan is white. I'll then scan the rest of the roll with these settings. This eliminates much of the color balancing on each frame. There's no need for this when scanning slide film.
I'll try to crop and adjust each frame in Vuescan as I scan them. I usually avoid any post processing this way. It doesn't always work, but I'm generally very close.
I usually scan to JPEG files. If I get the scan right the first time and do very little post processing, I do not get artifacts or at least I don't see them. I rarely use the multiple scan feature. Of course if I screw up and really underexpose a frame that I think might actually be worth the work, I'll scan to a TIFF file and use the multiple scan feature for 2 or 3 passes, then work on it in Photoshop.
The next step is to retouch dust spots and scratches with IPhoto. The retouching in IPhoto works very well and is quick. The ScanDual IV doesn't have any type of dust removal. Since the IPhoto retouching is so easy, I've never really wanted to upgrade.
If I can't get the photo the way I want it with these steps, I'll use Photoshop Elements for the final step. That's about it.
I will always turn the Apple monitor down to the lowest brightness setting, otherwise it is so bright that when I adjust the exposure so that it looks right, the prints come out far too dark.
The ScanDual has a resolution of 3200 PPI. This is sufficient to make 13X19 inch prints which is as large as my printer will go. I understand from reading several reviews of the Plustek that the actual resolution on it is about at this level as well. You may have difficulty getting 20 X 30 prints that look good.
I will usually have my negatives developed at Sam's Club. They actually do a pretty good job and the total cost with tax is $1.56. I ask them to cut and sleeve the negatives the same way that they do when someone is ordering prints. I've asked them to just develop the roll and not cut the negatives, but they then rolled the film up and put it in a film canister which scratched the heck out of the negatives.
When a new Costco opened near where I lived, I purchased a membership because I had read good things about their ability to scan at high resolution. The week after I joined all of their film developing machines disappeared. I asked about what happened and the photo manager told me that Costco’s new policy was that they were not purchasing any new machines. If a machine failed at a store where they had a high volume of film business, that store could take the machine from a store that didn't. Since the store I was at was new and hadn't developed much in the way of film business, they were one of the first ones to lose their machines.
For twenty years or so I shot only slides. Slides taken with the M7 are simply gorgeous. I can scan slides or negatives and obtain excellent results, but they don't quite look as good as a projected slide. Of course I'm using a Leitz projector and its not really a fair comparison. The Minolta scanner only cost $250 when it was new. I'm happy with the set up though for online use or making fairly small prints.
I hope this helps.
I've been shooting 35mm and scanning for about eight years now. I bought a M7 in 2004 and didn't really want to switch to digital when I had made such a substantial investment. I purchased a Nikon D200 since then, but still really like using the M7. I use a Minolta ScanDual IV with Vuescan and IPhoto software on a Mac. I've picked up a few tricks over time that might be helpful.
When scanning negatives, I will start by scanning a blank, unexposed frame on the roll and adjusting the scanner so that the scan is white. I'll then scan the rest of the roll with these settings. This eliminates much of the color balancing on each frame. There's no need for this when scanning slide film.
I'll try to crop and adjust each frame in Vuescan as I scan them. I usually avoid any post processing this way. It doesn't always work, but I'm generally very close.
I usually scan to JPEG files. If I get the scan right the first time and do very little post processing, I do not get artifacts or at least I don't see them. I rarely use the multiple scan feature. Of course if I screw up and really underexpose a frame that I think might actually be worth the work, I'll scan to a TIFF file and use the multiple scan feature for 2 or 3 passes, then work on it in Photoshop.
The next step is to retouch dust spots and scratches with IPhoto. The retouching in IPhoto works very well and is quick. The ScanDual IV doesn't have any type of dust removal. Since the IPhoto retouching is so easy, I've never really wanted to upgrade.
If I can't get the photo the way I want it with these steps, I'll use Photoshop Elements for the final step. That's about it.
I will always turn the Apple monitor down to the lowest brightness setting, otherwise it is so bright that when I adjust the exposure so that it looks right, the prints come out far too dark.
The ScanDual has a resolution of 3200 PPI. This is sufficient to make 13X19 inch prints which is as large as my printer will go. I understand from reading several reviews of the Plustek that the actual resolution on it is about at this level as well. You may have difficulty getting 20 X 30 prints that look good.
I will usually have my negatives developed at Sam's Club. They actually do a pretty good job and the total cost with tax is $1.56. I ask them to cut and sleeve the negatives the same way that they do when someone is ordering prints. I've asked them to just develop the roll and not cut the negatives, but they then rolled the film up and put it in a film canister which scratched the heck out of the negatives.
When a new Costco opened near where I lived, I purchased a membership because I had read good things about their ability to scan at high resolution. The week after I joined all of their film developing machines disappeared. I asked about what happened and the photo manager told me that Costco’s new policy was that they were not purchasing any new machines. If a machine failed at a store where they had a high volume of film business, that store could take the machine from a store that didn't. Since the store I was at was new and hadn't developed much in the way of film business, they were one of the first ones to lose their machines.
For twenty years or so I shot only slides. Slides taken with the M7 are simply gorgeous. I can scan slides or negatives and obtain excellent results, but they don't quite look as good as a projected slide. Of course I'm using a Leitz projector and its not really a fair comparison. The Minolta scanner only cost $250 when it was new. I'm happy with the set up though for online use or making fairly small prints.
I hope this helps.
dct
perpetual amateur
Still too much for the same session with film camera. When I'm shooting with a film camera, I switch my shooting behaviour automatically to "film mode": My frames/minute are far lower than with a digital camera, because I try to nail every shot of the roll. Only with a slow pace at composing it is possible to raise the percentage of keepers from the total.
dct
perpetual amateur
Same here. I like the way I photograph thoughtfull with film, like sometimes the grain aspect, but I don't like the time consuming processing and scanning for film. Did you see the testimonials and debates of bulk processing here? I send my rolls since a year out for processing and I'm mostly pleased of the results and the time saving.
bhop73
Well-known
I do all my own processing and scanning (color and b/w). I use an epson v700 scanner. It's a little time consuming to scan a 36exp roll, but I usually do it while doing other things, (watching tv, playing some video games, art, etc.) When a start a frame scan, i'll go back to what I was doing until it's time for the next frame, repeat till the strip is done. Then do my edits later.
I have to admit, since I got my X100, I feel like I haven't been shooting as much film. It's just easier to put the memory card into my computer and have editable pics ready to go, but I feel like those digital files aren't as nice looking as the film shots I take and I feel like I don't get as many keepers as when I shoot film.
I have to admit, since I got my X100, I feel like I haven't been shooting as much film. It's just easier to put the memory card into my computer and have editable pics ready to go, but I feel like those digital files aren't as nice looking as the film shots I take and I feel like I don't get as many keepers as when I shoot film.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I shot 3 rolls of 35mm b&w this weekend. Total cost of the 3 rolls was about $7.50
I developed them yesterday. Total time from start to finish was 30 minutes. Total cost was a few pennies for chemistry.
I have selected 5 for scanning. Tonight I will scan, post process and make 8x10 proof prints. Total time will be about 30 minutes. Total cost will be under $1 for ink and paper.
And 2 of the proof prints will go to a subject. There is another current post about photographing prostitutes. Mine is a similar situation.
I developed them yesterday. Total time from start to finish was 30 minutes. Total cost was a few pennies for chemistry.
I have selected 5 for scanning. Tonight I will scan, post process and make 8x10 proof prints. Total time will be about 30 minutes. Total cost will be under $1 for ink and paper.
And 2 of the proof prints will go to a subject. There is another current post about photographing prostitutes. Mine is a similar situation.
Dektol Dan
Well-known
Scanning Time Factor
Scanning Time Factor
I've been scanning film from the time it was first introduced on a commercial level (around 1996 I think). I wanted out of the dark room and the ability to easily handle color. I have a museum of sort of scanners and software (and kept the old computers to fly them).
I also have a collection for the first digital cameras (yes, I own a couple of Quicktakes), back been when they were more curiosities and toys.
I still shoot film, and prefer my M6 to my Canon 40D. I now have a Nikon 9000. I won't get into which is best, film or digital, because that's not on point.
So here's my take on the time factor. Scanning from someone else's processing still takes less time than a wet lab at home, and the overall cost is in line with buying an expensive digital camera.
Film offers a greater variety of color, texture and artistic control so if that takes added time so be it.
I rarely print anything, I still prefer the look of film on my monitor and iPad 2 better than my digital camera images.
Film is not very viable for commercial work anymore, but if you are looking for artistic control front to back, go for scanning.
Scanning Time Factor
I've been scanning film from the time it was first introduced on a commercial level (around 1996 I think). I wanted out of the dark room and the ability to easily handle color. I have a museum of sort of scanners and software (and kept the old computers to fly them).
I also have a collection for the first digital cameras (yes, I own a couple of Quicktakes), back been when they were more curiosities and toys.
I still shoot film, and prefer my M6 to my Canon 40D. I now have a Nikon 9000. I won't get into which is best, film or digital, because that's not on point.
So here's my take on the time factor. Scanning from someone else's processing still takes less time than a wet lab at home, and the overall cost is in line with buying an expensive digital camera.
Film offers a greater variety of color, texture and artistic control so if that takes added time so be it.
I rarely print anything, I still prefer the look of film on my monitor and iPad 2 better than my digital camera images.
Film is not very viable for commercial work anymore, but if you are looking for artistic control front to back, go for scanning.
whitecat
Lone Range(find)er
I shoot my Neopan, develop at home and then scan. I then play in Photoshop with the final appearing in Lightroom.
anerjee
Well-known
Scanning is not too bad once you become selective (the ideal would be like Bob above, but I scan about 50%).
Also, software has a huge impact on your productivity. I almost gave up on scanning trying to tame Silverfast, but got pointers in this forum to better approaches.
Finally, you'll be missing out on one of the best aspects of film photography if you stick to an M6 -- superb pocketable cameras that go with you anywhere. Treat yourself to an Olympus XA or a Ricoh Gr1 or a Yashica T4 and have fun.
Also, software has a huge impact on your productivity. I almost gave up on scanning trying to tame Silverfast, but got pointers in this forum to better approaches.
Finally, you'll be missing out on one of the best aspects of film photography if you stick to an M6 -- superb pocketable cameras that go with you anywhere. Treat yourself to an Olympus XA or a Ricoh Gr1 or a Yashica T4 and have fun.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I forgot. When I finish with the below, I will upload some photos I shot with my X-100, edit, post process and make proofs of them. I simply cannot get as excited about those as I shot everything I thought was special on film.
RFH
rfhansen.wordpress.com
I'm not one for giving advice, but I'll be happy to share my own thoughts and experiences on the subject. The plan was to keep it short. Well, well...
B&W for analogue darkroom use is pretty cheap and easy to work with, and the prints are better than digital unless you pay big bucks for the latter. But only if you already have your darkroom skills perfected to some degree, and it's very time consuming and takes up space. For fun and satisfaction, it sure beats scanning. But dealing with dust and scratches on film is definitely an issue to consider. Without the help of Eugene Smiths "friends", it's hard to do more than a pair of high-quality perfected prints in as long as you can stay awake. Also, I must wait for the prints to dry before I can assess them correctly. In the digital darkroom I can work much faster than that.
Depending on the buyer's perspective, I also think it's easier to argue for some kind of exoticness and "original art work" quality with handmade prints. Yes, I put that in quotes.
A 50x60 cm analogue B&W print costs less than a high quality digital equivalent, say $6-10 a piece, but you're likely to use a few of those to perfect an exhibition-quality image.
I'm getting impressive results from the large format Epson printer at one of my local photo shops. I got a very nice 50x60 cm B&W print from my 6 MP RD1 for appx. $50. I'm attentive to detail and quality, and I wouldn't mind exhibiting and selling that.
If I had a higher resolution camera like the M9, I'm sure it would look even better at the fine detail level.
If you buy an M6, you want a scanner to match its optical quality. If you shoot slide film, you'll get a look that I haven't seen equalled much in digital.
If scanning is to be manageable, you need a scanner with a good interface, speed and quality. The 2nd hand Nikon Coolscans are very good and can knock out a 100x150 cm scan in printable dpi from a 35 mm film. In my experience, good scans take quite some time to perfect, and just like with outputting to a printer, a lot of small things can go wrong and slow down the process.
Here in Denmark, the photo shops don't use analogue colour photo paper anymore. If I get a film developed and printed, it's going to be digital prints anyway, so I'm thinking that digital is probably in my future in terms of shooting and printing in colour.
I already have an M6, but if I could afford one, I'd buy an M9 tomorrow. Especially with 2nd hand prices approaching $5000.
B&W for analogue darkroom use is pretty cheap and easy to work with, and the prints are better than digital unless you pay big bucks for the latter. But only if you already have your darkroom skills perfected to some degree, and it's very time consuming and takes up space. For fun and satisfaction, it sure beats scanning. But dealing with dust and scratches on film is definitely an issue to consider. Without the help of Eugene Smiths "friends", it's hard to do more than a pair of high-quality perfected prints in as long as you can stay awake. Also, I must wait for the prints to dry before I can assess them correctly. In the digital darkroom I can work much faster than that.
Depending on the buyer's perspective, I also think it's easier to argue for some kind of exoticness and "original art work" quality with handmade prints. Yes, I put that in quotes.
A 50x60 cm analogue B&W print costs less than a high quality digital equivalent, say $6-10 a piece, but you're likely to use a few of those to perfect an exhibition-quality image.
I'm getting impressive results from the large format Epson printer at one of my local photo shops. I got a very nice 50x60 cm B&W print from my 6 MP RD1 for appx. $50. I'm attentive to detail and quality, and I wouldn't mind exhibiting and selling that.
If I had a higher resolution camera like the M9, I'm sure it would look even better at the fine detail level.
If you buy an M6, you want a scanner to match its optical quality. If you shoot slide film, you'll get a look that I haven't seen equalled much in digital.
If scanning is to be manageable, you need a scanner with a good interface, speed and quality. The 2nd hand Nikon Coolscans are very good and can knock out a 100x150 cm scan in printable dpi from a 35 mm film. In my experience, good scans take quite some time to perfect, and just like with outputting to a printer, a lot of small things can go wrong and slow down the process.
Here in Denmark, the photo shops don't use analogue colour photo paper anymore. If I get a film developed and printed, it's going to be digital prints anyway, so I'm thinking that digital is probably in my future in terms of shooting and printing in colour.
I already have an M6, but if I could afford one, I'd buy an M9 tomorrow. Especially with 2nd hand prices approaching $5000.