the end of film (for me)

[kuzano]

If it's any consolation....

If it's any consolation....

I'm shooting film and digital both.

Last night my card reader crapped out. It took me three cards and two digital camera's to confirm that fact. Then I discovered that because I rely on a card reader, I can't find my USB cord. I am trying to determine if my Canon 5D needs to have a sensor cleaning (it does). Now do, I perform my first ever sensor cleaning on a newly purchased $900 camera body, or send it in to have it cleaned and also checked out otherwise. Don't want to damage that sensor.... funny, in 5-6 years of Olympus Evolts with the dust shake system, I never experienced dust on the sensors... many Olympus' in fact.

Was last nights two hours of wasted time user error - probably.
It it going to stop - probably not

Am I going to go back to film... well at least for the time being, since the Canon needs to be cleaned and checked out.

Why did I go to digital in the first place...Oh Yes... I got sick of scanning, plus I truly dislike post processing. Plus the cost of film and processing. Oh, and I dismantled my dark room/wet lab.

Now, where did I put all that film stuff?:bang:

We have not yet met the media that's going to solve our problems. Either that, or we had it and we wandered off the beaten path and got lost in the digital abyss. 😎

 

[wjlapier]

I agree. I have slides from the 70's when I got started in photography. Went digital when the Nikon D70 was announced. I have a harddrive that is corrupt with images from a trip my family took to Jackson, WY. Fortunately, I printed some of the images, but I fear I've lost everything from that trip. There is alot more on that harddrive I wish I could somehow recover. At least when I shoot film I have a negative I can scan when I want to see that image.

Bummer. Well, at least you do have negs to re-scan. That's better than discovering you have 400 trashed images on a card that went bad. I'm still looking for the perfect answer. I have pretty much given up on 35mm film. It's hard for me to quit 120 though.

 

[kuzano]

There's always a bit of hope....

There's always a bit of hope....

I agree. I have slides from the 70's when I got started in photography. Went digital when the Nikon D70 was announced. I have a harddrive that is corrupt with images from a trip my family took to Jackson, WY. Fortunately, I printed some of the images, but I fear I've lost everything from that trip. There is alot more on that harddrive I wish I could somehow recover. At least when I shoot film I have a negative I can scan when I want to see that image.

I've been working, teching and consulting on personal computers for twenty years now. Rarely have found that if a hard drive still spins up, that corrupted files can not be saved to a relatively high percentage. Most often, the portion of the drive that seems to lose the files is the "file allocation system" which is the addressing system (simplification) that locates files on the drive. Most recovery software uses a algorithm that goes directly to the tracks/sectors of the drive and rebuilds an addressing system directly from locating files (kind of reversing the approach to file discovery). Things like file names and folder structures may not be exact when done, but files are recovered in large part. They may need to be reviewed, renamed, and re-organized.

While it's possible the files are lost, I would tell you that various pieces software in a good tech's hands can perform some pretty near-miraculous recovery.

If the drive still spins up and runs, and if the pictures are important, don't throw it away.

Lars

 

[Nikkor AIS]

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. See ya ...🙂.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Different people have different needs and priorities, as well as different competencies (with different levels).

Misframed negatives with the Coolscan 5000 (oh, have I had that experience) is usually an issue that comes up with thin or underexposed rolls (or a sequence of frames).

In this Twitter/Big Mac meal/Facebook/YouTube era of I-want-it-fast-and-I-want-it-now, it's easy to see how people expect to just press a button and go.

 

[matthewm]

I shoot both. When I shoot film, I typically get the lab to develop and do a web-res scan of the images. If I see an image I really love on the disk, I take the time to scan it hi-res. That's what I would suggest.

I've never used that scanner, but surely you can scan low-resolution and then pick out your favorites to scan one at a time, right?

 

[sanmich]

The automation part of scanning is a much more important part of the process than is discussed around here.
Just as an example, even if I could choose between a CS 5000 and a 9000, I would choose the 5000 for its full roll scanning ability.
My take on the issue:
For a fresh roll, or for top quality scanning, the Nikon.
For old stuff, already cut in 6 frames strips, I borrow an Epson V700.

Dave, you seem comfortable with digital, and seem like you know what you are doing in terms of backups. On top of that, you have an M9, which is probably as good as any film camera we can think of.
If you really don't see the point in film anymore, I see little sense in keeping shooting film. (Just saying. personally, I keep on feeding them with tri-x)

 

[anjoca76]

Wow, I'm a little surprised by some of the comments here. I am not someone who gets angry often, or easily, but I have definitely had freak-out moments of wanting to throw my scanner out the window--and for the exact same reasons as you, OP. My scanner wasn't framing correctly about a month ago. After a couple of hours of trying different things, I finally found a "reset" button in the software, and that did the trick. Somewhere along the way I must have changed the frame size. Problem solved.

But still, I hear ya, scanning sucks. It's my least favorite part of working with film. But I stick with it because I get zero pleasure out of shooting with my dslr. Some days I wish I could learn to like it more because it sure as hell is cheaper (cost of gear aside).

In any event, sorry you got beat up a little for showing frustration, considering my guess is you vented here because you thought it might be the one place where such anger could be understood!

 

[David_Manning]

Dave obviously was using a film workflow he chose...hi-res scanning every frame. I don't think we should fault a workflow he himself chose.

That being said, I'm sure he's been dealing with frustrations on a continuing basis, and this was the straw that broke that camel's back.

I fight the siren-song of pure digital all the time...usually when I return from a trip and look at those canisters which need to be souped (two at a time), dried, cut, sleeved, and then scanned (for the selects). For my digi-stuff, I just plug a card into the reader and make a cup of coffee. In addition, it's so easy to tag and organize. THAT is the real bugaboo for me. I'd love to have an assistant catalog all my negs and slides. That's true photographic indulgence.

All that being said and considered, there really is no digital equivalent to my Contax T3 yet, which is really like carrying a Nikon SLR with a good 35mm prime in my pocket. So, I soldier on because there is no equivalent in the digital realm yet.

Before anyone begins to list the "but what about ____," I've read about them all and there really isn't an equivalent yet (FF, fits in a small pocket, razor-sharp Zeiss Sonnar). So it's the camera that works for me, not the recording media.

I just wish good film and processing wasn't so expensive.

 

[djonesii]

not out of film just yet .....

not out of film just yet .....

My local lab that does 120/220 C41 closed, all C41 has been sold off.

Most of my 4X5 large format stuff is gone or going ......

The MFDB did cost what a low priced but good used car does, but man do the files look good.

All that said, there is just something special about developing B&W film. I will keep a F100, GA645ZI, and most likely the Alpenhouse with a Grafmatic back around becasue that experince is so specail to me.

With an Epson V700, I get good enough scans for 8X10's from all negatives. None of them match my P30+ Phase one back in IQ, tonality, or convience. That said, film is still special. Not for nostalgia, I went analog after digital!

It's just diffirent when I load/develp/scan my own. Most of my stuff is on the web or blurb books, so no real need to print.

to the OP, if it's not special any more just move on.

Dave

 

[Colin Corneau]

Anyone else find it ironic that digital hardware is the actual issue here..?

Get your scanner cleaned, or else replace it altogether. The idea that digital somehow saves time in processing is a fallacy...the type of work changes but the collective time spent on it is the same (or a bit more, when you take archiving and periodic re-archiving into account)

 

[BobYIL]

No darkroom:

10+ rolls take longest an hour to quick scan on a flatbed when cut in strips of 6-frames. Then scan only the frames chosen worth to use at higher resolution. 🙂

Darkroom:

10+ rolls take longest an hour to contact print when cut in stips of 6-frames. Then check the frames while the prints are wet. Then scan only the frames chosen worth to use at higher resolution or even 😀 wet-print them...

There is no need to :bang: for film provides alternatives...

Bob