Future of Film

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know that you're on some sort of mission to single-handedly wipe out film, but sometimes I'm mystified by your methodology. I guess the point here is that by always portraying film-users as dusty old men, shakily holding their ancient film cameras with bony, wrinkled hands, that you'll be able to scare away the 'kids'.

I think you might be surprised by how many of us don't fit your straw-man caricature.

 

I'm not on any kind of mission. I think film has its place. I am just being analytical. I really don't see any point in using film without staying analogue the whole way... unless you just like using your film cameras, which is the primary driving force on this forum. Without even going into sophisticated features that are on some digital cameras, to have a film equivalent of what every basic digital camera does, you'd need to carry quite a wide range of film with you. Unless I have exactly the type of film and camera format that I feel is best for each image, I feel I'd be compromising my vision by shooting film. (I used to carry cases of roll film and hundreds of sheets and often brought 3 or more different camera systems.) Once I started scanning film, the original format and some other "film" factors became less and less relevant to the point that digital was able to do many of the jobs better, faster, more conveniently, and much more cheaply.

 

But if you simply love the look of shooting film a certain way and making your own prints, you might feel that nothing else will do. I didn't feel that way. I saw film as a limitation. And I'm sure many others feel that way too or digital cameras would not have taken over the professional market the way it has.

 

By future generations, I don't mean that every single person who uses film is old. But the trends are inescapable... like it or not. Film use will continue to be a smaller and smaller niche with less and less support as time goes by. The history of photography has shown the same thing over and over again. I think Leica, Nikon, Canon and most other film camera r&d has come to a halt. That should tell you something. I was on the Mall in Washington DC a couple of weeks ago and there were all these parked vendor trucks that had large "Kodak Film" signs. I checked them out and most didn't have any film. I asked one vendor who said he keeps a few rolls under the counter but rarely sells any.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[plasticman]

I really don't see any point in using film without staying analogue the whole way... unless you just like using your film cameras, which is the primary driving force on this forum. Without even going into sophisticated features that are on some digital cameras, to have a film equivalent of what every basic digital camera does, you'd need to carry quite a wide range of film with you...

 

Oh dear, I really don't have the time to argue with this blinkered attitude. I'm torn as to whether I should add you to my ignore list, because I'm frankly tired of the obstinate way that you never actually listen to what people say, or whether it's best to answer back - just to make sure that you don't scare away potential film-users with your depressing doom-mongering.

 

Still - one more time before I get back to my life - I don't use film because I "like using [my] film cameras" - I use film because it gives me an image that is richer, more atmospheric, more beautiful and more 'dimensional' than images from a digital sensor. This is true even when those images are scanned into my computer.

I know you always ignore this central point, but I thought I'd repeat it one more time (apologies to all the other participants, who actually read and understood this statement the first time it was made).

[bill]

inconvenient technology

 

I love that term - it sums up the bloatware bunnies perfectly. May I use it in future?

 

There's an increasing feeling that film is trendy again.

 

My 17-year-old Son, who has never shown the slightest flicker of interest in photography up to this point, tells me that many of his friends have old Olympus, Nikon or Pentax SLRs (he calls them "old school"), either handed down or bought recently and have "shoot-outs" on a regular basis.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[AlanG]

Oh dear, I really don't have the time to argue with this blinkered attitude. I'm torn as to whether I should add you to my ignore list, because I'm frankly tired of the obstinate way that you never actually listen to what people say, or whether it's best to answer back - just to make sure that you don't scare away potential film-users with your depressing doom-mongering.

 

Still - one more time before I get back to my life - I don't use film because I "like using [my] film cameras" - I use film because it gives me an image that is richer, more atmospheric, more beautiful and more 'dimensional' than images from a digital sensor. This is true even when those images are scanned into my computer.

I know you always ignore this central point, but I thought I'd repeat it one more time (apologies to all the other participants, who actually read and understood this statement the first time it was made).

 

 

I read everything and I said I am aware of various reasons why people shoot film. I just don't feel that way myself anymore. I have scanned many thousands of images from various formats and don't see what you see. So I've concluded that digital will work for me. What you call doom-mongering, I call analysis but I clearly express it as opinion.

[bill]

Then you have my deepest sympathy. It must be terrible for you.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[bocaburger]

I use film because it gives me an image that is richer, more atmospheric, more beautiful and more 'dimensional' than images from a digital sensor. This is true even when those images are scanned into my computer.

 

I would very much like to know how you do that. Even better, I'd like to actually see it. I have never been able to get a print from a scan, even a professional scan (and by that I mean high-end, not Wal-Mart!) to look "richer, more atmospheric, more beautiful and more 'dimensional' than images from a digital sensor ". I've consulted with at least 2 dozen professional photographers and photographic printers, plus a publisher's photo editor, and owners of 2 local photo galleries, and all of them have told me that the best achievable is to minimize the detrimental artifacts of scanning film to where it is practically not noticeable. If you have a specific workflow that makes scanned film look like optically-printed film, I beg you to share it. I have a closet full of wonderful film cameras just languishing there, a freezer full of film my wife keeps threatening to throw in the trash, a 4000dpi film scanner, and Vuescan on my computer. All I need is someone to tell me how to use it all so the prints look like enlarger prints, not digital captures of film. TIA!

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I read everything and I said I am aware of various reasons why people shoot film. I just don't feel that way myself anymore. I have scanned thousands of images from various formats and don't see what you see. So I've concluded that digital will work for me. What you call doom-mongering, I call analysis but I clearly express it as opinion.

 

 

Yes Alan, you said it. The fact that YOU prefer digital doesn't mean that film is obsolete, inferior or that any of the film users are wrong, it's just that film works for us

[AlanG]

My 17-year-old Son, who has never shown the slightest flicker of interest in photography up to this point, tells me that many of his friends have old Olympus, Nikon or Pentax SLRs (he calls them "old school"), either handed down or bought recently and have "shoot-outs" on a regular basis.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Do you have any evidence that this forms a significant enough number to revitalize or help keep the film segment alive? Have they bought any new film cameras or darkrooms? How much are they actually spending on film and processing? If they get serious about photography or turn pro, do you think they'll keep using film?

 

By the way, the OP asked what the future is of film, so I don't see why I should be knocked for expressing my opinion... whether you agree with it or not.

[AlanG]

I would very much like to know how you do that. Even better, I'd like to actually see it. I have never been able to get a print from a scan, even a professional scan (and by that I mean high-end, not Wal-Mart!) to look "richer, more atmospheric, more beautiful and more 'dimensional' than images from a digital sensor ". I've consulted with at least 2 dozen professional photographers and photographic printers, plus a publisher's photo editor, and owners of 2 local photo galleries, and all of them have told me that the best achievable is to minimize the detrimental artifacts of scanning film to where it is practically not noticeable. If you have a specific workflow that makes scanned film look like optically-printed film, I beg you to share it. I have a closet full of wonderful film cameras just languishing there, a freezer full of film my wife keeps threatening to throw in the trash, a 4000dpi film scanner, and Vuescan on my computer. All I need is someone to tell me how to use it all so the prints look like enlarger prints, not digital captures of film. TIA!

 

I will say that I have made a lot of very nice digital prints from scanned film. But I think I am a pretty accomplished color and b/w technician having a darkroom since age 12, training at RIT and the Polytechnic of Central London and also having run a custom color printing business for a number of years. I have a 12 color inkjet printer and with some effort, I can make prints from scanned 35mm Tri-X that match my best Brovira gelatin prints. But it might not be that easy to get the results you are after, just as not everyone can go into a darkroom and consistently make great prints.

 

I have numerous prints that were originally made with all kinds of film formats and emulsions as well as various digital cameras and all kinds of processes from Cibachrome, dye transfer, type C, Agfa Brovira, Agfa Portriga, color silkscreen, Epson 7600, Canon ipf 6100 and most look great. I don't feel any one method or process somehow jumps out over the others, but the newest inkjet printers and digital cameras have the potential to make better prints (with much more accuracy and control) than I could ever get with slide film and Cibachrome. But again that is just my opinion.

[fotolebrocq]

As the OP I would like to thank everyone who participted in this amazing discussion. I would urge all not to get too bent out of shape about this as all opinions are, in there own way, valid. This is a brilliant forum inhabited by opinionated and knowledgable people and I believe the future of photography (film and digital) is the richer for it.

 

Tony

[Stealth3kpl]

There's an increasing feeling that film is trendy again. Naturally it may not last, but I'm optimistic.

I use this as my home page. It gets regular updates.

tokyo camera style

 

I would very much like to know how you do that............ a 4000dpi film scanner, and Vuescan on my computer. All I need is someone to tell me how to use it all so the prints look like enlarger prints, not digital captures of film. TIA!

 

+1. I'm fast starting to think that successful scanning particularly with Vuescan is a myth because no-one, and I mean no-one, in the history of the internet has ever posted a believable, repeatable scanning workflow. Check it out on Google. Type in "colour negative scanning with vuescan" or "scanning slides with Vuescan". I'll give you a week to find a comprehensive vuescanning workflow!

Pete

[andybarton]

Have you followed Ed Hamrick's guidance?

 

You might also want to have a look here http://www.scantips.com/

[mooky]

Canon rules. It might be a good idea to buy Canon stock so that we can afford Leicas.

 

Okay, whatever.

[bocaburger]

 

+1. I'm fast starting to think that successful scanning particularly with Vuescan is a myth because no-one, and I mean no-one, in the history of the internet has ever posted a believable, repeatable scanning workflow. Check it out on Google. Type in "colour negative scanning with vuescan" or "scanning slides with Vuescan". I'll give you a week to find a comprehensive vuescanning workflow!

Pete

 

 

Have you followed Ed Hamrick's guidance?

 

You might also want to have a look here Scanning Basics 101 - All about digital images

 

Yes and, I did. Among hundreds of other websites, forum postings, and personal one-on-ones with people who scan and print for a living. Like AlanG I've made (to my taste) some very nice prints from scanned film. That's not the problem or the issue. The issue is making prints from scans that look better than those made from digital capture. There is plenty of information on this forum alone regarding post process workflow for the M8 (and beginning to evolve, the M9), which I've been grateful to follow and reproduce the results claimed. But no such information on scanning and printing from film. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that the people who claim that scanned film is better than digital capture haven't yet been forthcoming with the how-to as their digital-capturing counterparts. BTW I shot film for 40 years, happily, and was a very reluctant and skeptical convert to digital.

[jplomley]

Its all in the scanner and the ability of the operator. I would recommend outsourcing your scanning to a pro lab such as JaincoTech which run both an Imacon 949 and Creo iQ3. For drum scans, West Coast Imaging do spectacular work on their Heidelberg. I routinely have my 6x7 and 4x5 work scanned at both these labs, and 40x50 inch prints are no problem. I will run a Coolscan 9000 in order to make preview prints from my MF work, but when I want to print seriously, I use one of the scanners designed for high end repro work as mentioned above. The problem with this digital vs film debate is that very few film users are employing high end scanners. Epson and Nikon are not high end professional scanners. Imacon, Creo, Heidelberg, and Cezanne are. I wonder just how many film users are actually oil mounting for perfect flatness when making these comparisons?

[DerekF]

Do you have any evidence that this forms a significant enough number to revitalize or help keep the film segment alive? Have they bought any new film cameras or darkrooms? How much are they actually spending on film and processing?

 

How many new film cameras are being released now anyway? Aside from the throwaway P&S you find at pharmacies or the silly expensive cameras that are bought by people who frequent this forum (that includes new Leicas of both stripes (MP+M7) and Voigtländer's RF and MF offerings), there's not much middle ground for most young people to afford buying new, especially when there are so many good, used samples out there.

 

I can't say that we, as film users, constitute a large enough market to sustain or even grow the market, but I can't really say I care. As long as the film's available, I'll keep shooting it. I suspect I'll be doing that for many more years to come.

[andybarton]

Scanning is a skill that takes practice and patience and perseverance.

[jplomley]

I agree Andy, but at some point the scanner will impose limitations beyond the operators ability to find workarounds. For example film flatness, Dmax, CCD blooming etc etc. The PMT is still an unsurpassed detector technology and is why drum scans rule the roost for the last bit of image quality. Not to mention negs are oil mounted for perfect film flatness.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Paul Glendell]

Okay I'll put in my 'fivepennyworth' as the saying goes and I really do hope someone is going to tell me I've been missinformed. On a Magnum professional practice course in London in February this year the head of Metro Labs ( I think that was the lab ) was ask the inevitable question what is the future of film, his answer was that there was only one company (in Switzerland) making film quality gelatin and if the demand dropped too low they are a commercial business and they would simply give up producing the stuff.

 

Please someone tell me I have been missinformed. I still own an M6 and love using it

 

Paul Glendell

 

www.glendell.co.uk

[plasticman]

I'm using a Nikon LS9000ED and for my needs it's definitely adequate. I've discussed my own workflow several times on the forum - and in short it consists in capturing a 48bit linear negative at 4000dpi using 4 samples (outlined here), and saving as a raw TIFF file (about 120megs of information), which I 'develop' using CF Systems ColorPerfect.

 

As I've said many times, the images are never as sharp or as smooth as my digital images, but sharpness and smoothness are not a major concern for me. Possibly these are things you value highly?