the end of film (for me)

I've had this exact hissy fit quite a few times myself. Scanning sucks. I'm mainly digital now, but I'm considering trialling an outsourced film workflow - shoot film, send to speciality lab to develop and scan. They use an imacon scanner and charge about $5-10 a roll for 3000dpi scans, and apparently they're very very good.

It may be worth considering outsourcing your film to a lab? I know a lot of famous wedding photographers do exactly this... If you had your nikon scanner serviced and then sold it, that would probably pay for a decent amount of scans.

Just a thought!
 
Scanning

Scanning

I don't think the question here is anything to do with the "film versus digital" debate (i.e. one or the other), but is instead the problems of marrying the best of both.

Yes, I can understand the frustration of having to re-scan however many images, but I also know what it's like to spend five hours undoing mistakes when post-processing a digital original!

The sad fact is, you can make mistakes with any technology.

While people such as myself who've "gone back" to film for whatever reason will argue the merits of it as a means of primary capture, it cannot be denied that with digital you have a superior workflow / post-processing situation.

While I've managed to get a good processing and scan package that produces medium resolution scans for a very good price, finding a scanning service that will produce high-resolution scans, or rather high-quality high resolution scans for a reasonable price has proved more difficult.

High quality results are as much dependent on the care and effort expended as the technology used. This is probably why some scanning services are quite expensive, but even these can't be guaranteed to give me what I want as only I know what that is.

In a nutshell, only doing it myself, or closely supervising someone who has the required skills that I may not have will give me what I want.

With this in mind, I'm thinking of buying a scanner, and not junking some very good film equipment to buy - for around the same price as the scanner - a DSLR that will be laughed at in a year or two.
 
Scanning? What is this "scanning" you speak of? I have no issues with my enlarger.

I don't do photography because it is easy and convenient, I do it because I find satisfaction in the traditional process and in the final outcome.

Do whatever is best for you.
 
justsayda said:
With this in mind, I'm thinking of buying a scanner, and not junking some very good film equipment to buy - for around the same price as the scanner - a DSLR that will be laughed at in a year or two.
Click to expand...

This is a common argument and one that was valid 7-10 years ago, however cameras like the original 5d were introduced in 2005 and are still widely used at a professional level in 2011, 6 years later. In 10 years time they'll still be making photos of a similar quality to 35mm film scanned on an expensive scanner, and no new model development will change that!
 
AusDLK said:
I am as angry has I can remember.

I just went to examine 10+ rolls of film that I had recently run through my Nikon 5000 scanner with a roll film adapter.

Each roll (plus four others I did later did for a friend) are increasingly miss-framed as the scanner got toward the end of end of 36 frames.

Forget the fact that I failed to examine the first complete roll to to catch this ~14 rolls ago. This had not happened to me before. I have always completely scanned every roll I take. Up til now, I have accepted the hassle of scanning as a fact of my photographic life.

But to go back and scan each of these rolls six frames at a time (I cut the film when the scanning is done) will take a ridiculously long time.

On top of that, I don't know happened to my scanner. Hardware? Did the horribly designed Silverfast software suddenly forget how to advance frames properly? And don't even mention Vuescan -- it is SO much worse from a user-interface point of view that it borders on pathetic.

I want to make pictures, not f**k with things like this.

So, film is history for me. Anyone want to make me an offer on a Leica IIIf + lenses, a Nikon S3 2000 + lenses, two 0.58 Leica M7s, and a possibly busted Nikon 5000 scanner, feel free.

I don't need this s**t any more.
Click to expand...

"Look Dave, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over. " :D
 
Scanner: something that will sit on my desk and scan transparencies that would cost a fortune to print with my enlarger (Ilforchrome chemicals alone = £120 +)

Enlarger: something under my desk in a big box until I make room somewhere to set it up and print my own black and white because I don't like digital (including scanned) black and white.

You're perfectly right: do whatever is best for you
 
I can see that scanning is no one's favorite thing. Mine either. As others, I simply let the shop doing the development do the scans. I get pretty decent 1800 pixel (on the long side) scans from our local Walgreens, and even better ones from various pro labs. That's all I really need to evaluate a roll. The few that are worth full rez scans I do myself, but scanning four or five frames at high rez really isn't that bad. Who needs to full-rez the entire roll? That's like spending hours in a darkroom to print every frame from a roll at 8x10. It's a waste of time and resources.
 
Before having a hissy fit, how about getting a new scanner? Like some other poster noted, at least you still have negatives. It could be lot worse, you have a Nikon D3 or a Leica M9, spiffy camera, but the card you saved 800+ images to got corrupted losing the entire shoot. Just how pissed would you be then?
 
fdigital said:
This is a common argument and one that was valid 7-10 years ago, however cameras like the original 5d were introduced in 2005 and are still widely used at a professional level in 2011, 6 years later. In 10 years time they'll still be making photos of a similar quality to 35mm film scanned on an expensive scanner, and no new model development will change that!
Click to expand...

I should have pointed out that I also use roll film in addition to 35mm. When they make a digital camera that will give me the quality - and, as importantly, the look - of 120 film then I'll have one, presuming I can afford it.

I'm a bit too tired (it's late here) to get into the digital vs film thing - I've used both and each has it's merits.

The quality(ies) of film and the convenience of digital would be something I'd go for without question.

It's when I read about a DSLR released last year to great acclaim that is now considered as nothing special (in a review) that makes me think that digital cameras (as well as digital technolgy in general) is almost obsolete before you get it out of the box.

That and the batteries for the said camera cost £50, and one thing I do know about digital cameras - or at least the ones I have - is that they eat (rather expensive) batteries.

Having said that, I'd have a DSLR tomorrow if they did what I wanted them to.

I think in this whole digital/film thing the one thing that is forgotten is that photography is (or can be) an art form, and that, in art, subjectivity is the most important criteria.

As one comment on this thread alluded to, no-one ever ditched oil paints just because they smell and take ages to dry, and no-one else considered them to be Luddites because of this.

I think that those who jump up and down defending / attacking different formats or media ought to ask themselves whether or not they are more interested in the means or the end, that is, are they more interested in what you use to take photographs rather than the photographs themselves?

When it comes to technology, I'm really not bothered what it is, it's what it does that matters.

I really am tired now. Goodnight all.
 
If you are really upset... please send an M7 and the S3 set over immediately. I'll punish them for their being accomplices in the dilemma.

Felt the scanner mocking my efforts... got through a few scans on my 9000 and was scanning 6x12s, you have to scan a 6x7 on both halves and then composite them together as 6x9 is the largest you can get. It was only after scanning 3 of these (6 halves) that I realized the second half was way under exposed... So I rescanned one of them (the other two really weren't that good anyway!) and that was that.

I like to edit while the other scans are going, so I got some editing and some scanning done. It took way longer than I thought it would, but way less time and effort than getting me into a darkroom! And they don't make a 6x12 pinhole camera that I'm aware of so...

When I think of my ~23MP scans from 35mm film and my monster scans at 6x7, I quickly forget about the M9 and digital backs. I've a bunch of "digital" cameras; they just shoot film :)
 
AusDLK said:
I want to make pictures, not f**k with things like this.

So, film is history for me. Anyone want to make me an offer on a Leica IIIf + lenses, a Nikon S3 2000 + lenses, two 0.58 Leica M7s, and a possibly busted Nikon 5000 scanner, feel free.

I don't need this s**t any more.
Click to expand...

I'm rapidly coming to the same place. I have what is for me some serious change sunk into film cameras, film lenses, film scanners, etc. But, I'm an infrequent shooter. The hassle of scanning and Photoshopping images is, frankly, just that: A hassle. (I don't make prints.)

The final result from tweaking a film negative does not make up for the hours I spend shoving negative strips into the scanner.

A secondary, but important, issue is storage and backup. Negatives cannot be backed up, not in any sense for a hobbyist. Meanwhile, I have two automatic local backups and one remote backup for everything that's on my desktop. Piece of cake.

I like small cameras and small lenses. My digitals amount to a Ricoh GX200 and a Sigma DPS-2. Very tempted to sell a bunch of stuff and get something like the GRX.
 
I was going to suggest that you get mad at yourself for not being more attentive rather than get mad at the equipment, which is going to misbehave from time to time, but I suspect that you already figured that one out.

You have lots of great equipment, both film and digital. I doubt that your digital will do what the Mamiya 7 will do for you and the same in reverse. If you want what film gives you and you don't want the frustration, or don't have the time... give Precision a try.
 
I completely feel your pain. I love to shoot film, love to be in the darkroom developing it, but really hate scanning the film and editing in the computer. The digital part of the process is the death of me. I really just can not stand it. The way that I am going to solve the problem is building a complete darkroom. I am planning on leaving the computer out of the equation.
 
Someone suggested this as an alternative to traditional contact printing of neg pages, but it is also an alternative to scanning negs individually: use a flatbed scanner to scan the whole page of sleeved negs, and use that information to individually scan only the keepers.
 
Why give it up? No law says you cant shot both. Shooting digital will make you a better film shooter. You will learn to live with less DR with digital and when you go back to film you will expose shots better and shooting film will teach you to slow down and learn better technique in the field. Do both and be a better photographer. Switch back and forth as you get frustrated.
 
cosmonaut said:
Why give it up? No law says you cant shot both. Shooting digital will make you a better film shooter. You will learn to live with less DR with digital and when you go back to film you will expose shots better and shooting film will teach you to slow down and learn better technique in the field. Do both and be a better photographer. Switch back and forth as you get frustrated.
Click to expand...


Can't argue with that!:)
 
When you start mistrusting your equipment (in this case the scanner) and it is easy to replace not only the scanner but the whole step in the workflow, why not just go digital.

I think we should give credit to the OP for doing the film/scanner combo for so long.
 
cosmonaut said:
Why give it up? No law says you cant shot both. Shooting digital will make you a better film shooter. You will learn to live with less DR with digital and when you go back to film you will expose shots better and shooting film will teach you to slow down and learn better technique in the field. Do both and be a better photographer. Switch back and forth as you get frustrated.
Click to expand...

Can't speak for the OP, but I'm pretty much to the point that I don't enjoy doing what film requires. So it isn't a matter of taking a break with digital. The part of photography that I enjoy most is the actual taking of pictures. I enjoy that just as much with a digital as I do with film.

I've come to the position that scanning film is just an unnecessary step on the way to getting a digital image. Why not just cut to the chase?

What I really want is a digital camera that can instantly offload image copies via IP to a place that does some rudimentary automatic processing. That would mean even less tweaking time for me.
 
like i use to do before i got lazy

like i use to do before i got lazy

FrankS said:
Someone suggested this as an alternative to traditional contact printing of neg pages, but it is also an alternative to scanning negs individually: use a flatbed scanner to scan the whole page of sleeved negs, and use that information to individually scan only the keepers.
Click to expand...

Just a contact print and grease pencil the keepers:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom