No scan nor print

[Ruvy]

My photographic history in the last eight years has a lot of going back and forth from digital to film and back again. Last month or two I have developed an immense taste for RF and 35mm film. Recently someone here posted a thread about "silver efex" and experiences with D-lux 4 or GR2 which made me think about the difference between a camera that directly scans an image with its sensor vs. table top scanner that does same to image with a film in the way. All of sudden I am not here nor there... thinking film meant to end up printed in a wet lab - not with extra 2-3 steps of scanning, computer processing (true, with incredible wealth of tools never known before) and printing.
The fact that I have never mastered the art of printing is a good excuse in favor of scanning but than why the bother when I can do the scanning directly in a camera without additional steps along the way...
I wonder, how many of you are shooting film but never wet print and how many of you who use computer print on paper more than 2% of your images.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

I use film cameras 75% of the time, the rest with P&S digital. I print everything using the computer/printer workflow... no wet darkroom. I don't have the time, space, or money to keep up a wet darkroom anymore. The digital darkroom seems like a reasonably good compromise, especially since I never print larger than 11x14.

To get film into the digital process, I have my film developed and scanned onto a CD (fairly low-res scans) at the local low-cost provider. The CD acts like a contact sheet for me. When I see an image I like, I then scan that frame using a desktop 35mm scanner to get a much higher resolution file for printing.

Another advantage to this workflow is that I can use color film for everything and then if I think an image would look better in B&W, I can desaturate the color file and print it as B&W. These come out beautifully, at least at the size I normally print... 8x10 or so. This is a BIG advantage for the digital side, in my opinion.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Mono: film and darkroom.

Colour: 80-90% digi + 10-20% film+scan; for website or photomechanical reproduction (books or magazines). Very little printed out.

Then again, two per cent -- one pic in 50 -- isn't a bad ratio to make it into publication or onto the wall anyway.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ruvy]

Why the film

Why the film

You are saing that efficiency get you into this process. - shooting digital directly is even more efficient and saves the time.cost and hastle of film... why not scan your image in the camera i.e. shoot digital or wht is in it for you to continue film? is it the type of camera that you like, is it the way film looks? anything else?

I use film cameras 75% of the time, the rest with P&S digital. I print everything using the computer/printer workflow... no wet darkroom. I don't have the time, space, or money to keep up a wet darkroom anymore. The digital darkroom seems like a reasonably good compromise, especially since I never print larger than 11x14.

To get film into the digital process, I have my film developed and scanned onto a CD (fairly low-res scans) at the local low-cost provider. The CD acts like a contact sheet for me. When I see an image I like, I then scan that frame using a desktop 35mm scanner to get a much higher resolution file for printing.

Another advantage to this workflow is that I can use color film for everything and then if I think an image would look better in B&W, I can desaturate the color file and print it as B&W. These come out beautifully, at least at the size I normally print... 8x10 or so. This is a BIG advantage for the digital side, in my opinion.

 

[aad]

I'm shooting film because I want a film record. Plus I prefer fully manual cameras.