Why film?

[PKR]

Enlighten me.

Why?

56789

 

[ptpdprinter]

Why?

You certainly don't have to explain why you think there is or should be a difference to a purchaser between an inkjet print from a film negative which has been scanned and an inkjet print from a digital file. Anybody else out think there is or should be a difference to a purchaser?

 

[jsrockit]

Anyways I feel inspired, although some might think I'm just crazy. I'm cool with that. LOL.

You're having fun with it all and know how to make fun of yourself... that's the important part. You'll have to show me it when I come to NYC in Oct.

 

[gnuyork]

I also have a long history of silver b+w printing and dye transfer color printing behind me. So, that helps with my history of being honest.

No offense but I don't see how a history of silver printing has anything to do with honesty about manipulation of scans and/or digital files. Not that I think there is anything wrong with manipulation (I don't do it often other than the usual contrast curves/Sharpening, but I certainly have on some occasions (like edit out my tripod shadow on a wide beach panoramic landscape). The image is better for it.

News/Journalism is a different story though.

 

[charjohncarter]

I shot mostly film, but I do use digital for my theater photos. Still, when I send a scanned negative (and only rarely a digital) B&W file to a processer that uses laser exposed TRUE black and white paper chemically developed. It seems like the old days holding that B&W Silver print in my hand: nothing better.

 

[PKR]

I shot mostly film, but I do use digital for my theater photos. Still, when I send a scanned negative (and only rarely a digital) B&W file to a processer that uses laser exposed TRUE black and white paper chemically developed. It seems like the old days holding that B&W Silver print in my hand: nothing better.

Fuji makes or made a printer called a Fujimoto. It's a digital silver printer and prints on Fuji silver based color paper. The printers are very expensive, $250k I recall, and make great prints. The head printer at one lab I use, is very good with this printer and has made some really nice large prints for me. Once I approve a test print, anything I order over time matches the test print. So, I can order prints as needed, rather than have to store batches. The prints are fairly archival, but not as good as a cotton rag pigment print.

I've printed b+w on color paper. If adjusted properly, you can get a pretty nice (very close to Agfa Portriga Rapid) b+w print. I haven't tried it with the Fujimoto, but might. Most of them take 30- 40" roll paper (can't remember), so large prints are common output. The largest I print is 30x40.
http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/13195/digital_lab_system/

 

[charjohncarter]

Fuji makes or made a printer called a Fujimoto. It's a digital silver printer and prints on Fuji silver based color paper. The printers are very expensive, $250k I recall, and make great prints. The head printer at one lab I use, is very good with this printer and has made some really nice large prints for me. Once I approve a test print, anything I order over time matches the test print. So, I can order prints as needed, rather than have to store batches. The prints are fairly archival, but not as good as a cotton rag pigment print.

I've printed b+w on color paper. If adjusted properly, you can get a pretty nice (very close to Agfa Portriga Rapid) b+w print. I haven't tried it with the Fujimoto, but might. Most of them take 30- 40" roll paper (can't remember), so large prints are common output. The largest I print is 30x40.
http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/13195/digital_lab_system/

Yes, I use our Costco that has the Fuji Frontera (SP?), they used to have the Noritsu, but they both use/used Fuji Archival Color paper which is laser exposed and chemically developed. This paper was excellent for color, but was not so excellent with B&W (at least for me). So when I want a great print I use a Long Beach lab that does use a True B&W paper, that is laser printed the way I described above. If you want to see a True B&W Paper (matte) try a test image with Mpix.

By the way or in RFF speak BTW, these prints are cheaper than digital inkjet printing which to me is still inferior. I have never digitally printed but my friend is always updating his printer and he has a new expensive Epson with $300 ink sets and they don't look that good to me.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Having used the Noritsu to print both scanned film and digital images, let's just charitably say it is not optimal, and it is worse for black and white than color.

 

[PKR]

Yes, I use our Costco that has the Fuji Frontera (SP?), they used to have the Noritsu, but they both use/used Fuji Archival Color paper which is laser exposed and chemically developed. This paper was excellent for color, but was not so excellent with B&W (at least for me). So when I want a great print I use a Long Beach lab that does use a True B&W paper, that is laser printed the way I described above. If you want to see a True B&W Paper (matte) try a test image with Mpix.

By the way or in RFF speak BTW, these prints are cheaper than digital inkjet printing which to me is still inferior. I have never digitally printed but my friend is always updating his printer and he has a new expensive Epson with $300 ink sets and they don't look that good to me.

To make really great pigment prints most people need to spend a lot of time printing. It's an expensive learning process. I wouldn't have quit printing wet if I liked it better than pigment. I feel I have much more control with a digital printer. I must say though, the best of my prints were made from film wet scanned on a Cero IQ 2 scanner. I don't own one of these and couldn't use it often enough to justify the cost to maintain it. So, I pay for those scans. I gave my Focomat to a friend so, no wet printing here unless I really need to.

Even with a calibrated monitor, I make my adjustments from a first print and on, like I did in the darkroom. The monitor only gets me to a first print.

The ink sets for the big Epson are more than $300. I don't own one but was told they are around $600. I'm not sure if that's correct. If the printer is making you money it's not a big deal. But, for a hobbyist it's a bit high.

I just checked b&h, Epson K3 9 cart set is $497.00, so yeah, expensive!

 

[gnuyork]

Fuji makes or made a printer called a Fujimoto. It's a digital silver printer and prints on Fuji silver based color paper. The printers are very expensive, $250k I recall, and make great prints.

Is that the same thing as LightJet? Is Light Jet s brand or a process? Anyway, I worked with a landscape photographer who does (LightJet) and prints his color work very large (scanned form 8x10 Velvia or Astia) onto Fugi Crystal Archive. The results are quite stunning.

I get very good prints on the Epsons and a Canon printers I have, and yes I agree it takes practice, but worth it. I also have a Focomat II (as well as a few other enlargers including 2 4x5) that I have never set up. I went through a digital phase when I received all of that gear. I'm actually intimidated with setting up a darkroom (with ventilation/plumbing etc.) But I think when I can carve out some time to do it, I may try to start wet printing again just for fun and because i have that stuff. I really look forward to seeing what I could do with a Focomat and some Rolleiflex negatives.

 

[Richard G]

Why film?

Two stops exposure on colour negative film added for the depths of this dim cafe, afternoon light from cloudy sky bathing the front tables and floor. And still there's detail in the nearest overhead light.


Le Petit Croix by Richard, on Flickr

 

[teddy]

... Maybe I'm just part of the school that says photography ends exactly when you press the shutter...

I'm with you there Juan. I don't feel good when I have to burn and dodge or whatever - other wise it becomes image editing. I was a full time graphics designer for 12 years. I say, take ages to compose - do it good and click the shutter.

I think you and perhaps I with more practice belong to Group f/64.

 

[PKR]

I'm with you there Juan. I don't feel good when I have to burn and dodge or whatever - other wise it becomes image editing. I was a full time graphics designer for 12 years. I say, take ages to compose - do it good and click the shutter.

I think you and perhaps I with more practice belong to Group f/64.

Do you guys use any filters.. yellow for b&w, a polarizer?

 

[Calzone]

You're having fun with it all and know how to make fun of yourself... that's the important part. You'll have to show me it when I come to NYC in Oct.

John,

Kinda funny how Linhof Disease took hold after you left NYC. In a way I kinda built out the Baby Linhofs to honor you. You are the man who coined the name "Monsters" for my cameras. LOL.

When I mentioned to Christian how I don't see Linhofs "in the wild" and that people might get the impression that someone carrying a Linhof around NYC might be a little off and crazy, Christian's response was, "Their first impression might be right." LOL.

Then there was that time when I met up with Louis Mendez at the UES Art and Antique Show at the armory, when he left me with his suitcase of film and his Crown Graphic, and basically I became a Louis Mendez impersonator while Louis went to get some lunch. It was a powerful experience holding a camera that gets associated with an urban legend. I was swarmed by people who knew Louis, and I got asked: "Where is Louis;" "You're not Louis;" "What are you doing with Louis's camera."

One guy stood like a body guard making sure my story was legit, and waited til Louis returned. I became deeply impressed by the mojo of Louis's rig.

Also know that Louis invites me every year to take the train to do Mardi Gras. I have two Polaroid backs for the Linhofs, and I bought 25 boxes of Fuji FP-100. Not sure I have enough film. Could be an epic adventure.

Louis has been around, and back when he was a kid he hung out with Eugene Smith back in the Jazz Loft days.

Anyways I think you will find my Linhofs amusing. They are true "Monsters." LOL.

Cal

 

[cz23]

....Winogrand talked about and use the camera for what it's good: reflecting reality, and reflecting it just as it is....

I bet Winogrand would brusquely correct you for misrepresenting his perspective about a photograph "reflecting reality." As he said, "A still photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how a camera saw a piece of time and space."

That aside, the bigger issue for me is the assumption that an untouched photograph always represents reality better than a touched photograph. That just isn't true. To give just one example, the human eye and brain make all sorts of adjustments and compensations for the relatively paltry dynamic range of films and sensors. Which is the more real perception - the machine's or the human's? I'd side with the photographer's perception.

Whatever artistic principles we all adopt is fine with me. But we can't claim that avoiding post-processing is more true to reality. The only thing it's truer to is the way the photographic process renders reality. Personally, I can't see anything sacred about that rendering.

John

 

[Calzone]

Is that the same thing as LightJet? Is Light Jet s brand or a process? Anyway, I worked with a landscape photographer who does (LightJet) and prints his color work very large (scanned form 8x10 Velvia or Astia) onto Fugi Crystal Archive. The results are quite stunning.

I get very good prints on the Epsons and a Canon printers I have, and yes I agree it takes practice, but worth it. I also have a Focomat II (as well as a few other enlargers including 2 4x5) that I have never set up. I went through a digital phase when I received all of that gear. I'm actually intimidated with setting up a darkroom (with ventilation/plumbing etc.) But I think when I can carve out some time to do it, I may try to start wet printing again just for fun and because i have that stuff. I really look forward to seeing what I could do with a Focomat and some Rolleiflex negatives.

A while back at PhotoPlusExpo Digital Silver Imaging offered $1K worth of printing for $500.00 through a pre-pay promotion.

Pretty much a laser is used to project a digital file to make a B&W silver wet print. I had some landscape images printed "Monster" size from files created by a Leica Monochrom. Basically I wanted to see how far developed was the technology. The prints cost about $700.00 each printed on fiber, but realize in fact I only paid half that. I had 2 inch borders but the prints overall were around 40 inches long so the 2x3 images were 24x36.

When one noses in to look close you can see the softness along the edges, and even a laser is not perfectly collumated. This is an artifact of projection and it seemed to be where the limits lay of this hybred medium.

For me the silver wet print has this smoothness, but when compared to one of my Piezography prints my digital prints have higher resolution. I like both prints, but each has its own voice. Same file just printed differently. The digital print looks more like a contact print as far as sharpness and detail.

Cal

 

[KM-25]

You certainly don't have to explain why you think there is or should be a difference to a purchaser between an inkjet print from a film negative which has been scanned and an inkjet print from a digital file. Anybody else out think there is or should be a difference to a purchaser?

Unless the pieces are being sold to interior designers or resort / hotel chains, I have found more and more that art buyers want to know how an image came to be. Lately I have asked on occasion why that is and many cite that they don't see why they should pay for something that so many people can do at the stroke of a keyboard or mouse.

I saw this coming a long, long time ago, hence my full commitment to the fine black and white print as a pure analog process. I think it is nearly comical in how it is always photo enthusiasts or photographers who claim the buyer of said piece won't care when in fact a lot of them do, at least in my experience.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Well, yesterday I was studying two photo books. One day of the USSR (1986) and Modern Color (fifties and sixties). Both have large printed photos taken on film.
And I flatbedly scanned crappy, old Kodak Gold 200 taken with Konica Off Road. Printed it on premium semi-gloss inkjet paper with wrong WB and it still looks like film. 🙂

Bill's statement about making digital looks how you want is absolutely true. With one exception. Film can't be faked.

 

[Calzone]

Unless the pieces are being sold to interior designers or resort / hotel chains, I have found more and more that art buyers want to know how an image came to be. Lately I have asked on occasion why that is and many cite that they don't see why they should pay for something that so many people can do at the stroke of a keyboard or mouse.

I saw this coming a long, long time ago, hence my full commitment to the fine black and white print as a pure analog process. I think it is nearly comical in how it is always photo enthusiasts or photographers who claim the buyer of said piece won't care when in fact a lot of them do, at least in my experience.

KM-25,

Thanks for pointing this out. It does seem to me also there is a bias and a premium of value added to analog and wet prints. For those that want it, paying the premium is not a problem. Also I feel wet printing has its own value added because of the "hand made" element that gets associated with "fine art" printing. Anyways I'm speaking within the confines of the fine art outlook.

Also so far I have not scanned or done figital. I have kept digital-digital and analog-analog.

Cal

 

[jsrockit]

That aside, the bigger issue for me is the assumption that an untouched photograph always represents reality better than a touched photograph. That just isn't true. To give just one example, the human eye and brain make all sorts of adjustments and compensations for the relatively paltry dynamic range of films and sensors. Which is the more real perception - the machine's or the human's? I'd side with the photographer's perception.

Also, lenses always distort supposed reality.