Dear God, Shall I drop digital?

[Guest Ming Rider]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, resurge is probably the wrong word. Renewed, rekindled or growing at a stretch.

 

Kodak (film) was a victim of it's own self image and is an example of failing to adapt to changing times.

 

If they'd downsized their operation to something similar to Ilford instead of continuing as if it were the glory days, then the costs would have matched the demand.

 

Kodak, up to it's demise, thought it was immortal because it was Kodak.

[Advertisement]

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

[Keith (M)]

Renewed, rekindled

 

Two words that apply to my enthusiasm for b&w film. After six or so years of being 100% digital I would put my usage now at 60% or so film (M7, MP, IIIg, Rolleicord Vb). Of late, films of choice for me are Tri-X and Acros 100. If and when these are no longer available, I feel sure there will be a number of alternative choices available from the niche players.

[mca]

I can agree that a scanned negative enters the 'digital paradigm' but I'm not sure why that's a "waste of time and money."

 

The scan produced a much better print than when initially printed on a conventional enlarger (Durst with Rodenstock lens) from the original negative. Yes, they were both 'wet printed' as final output, but scanning the film was not at all a waste of money and in fact made the final print a higher quality product in all respects.

 

Out of curiosity, did you post process the scanned image before printing? I cannot see how the same image, scanned and printed, without any kind of processing applied, could come out better than a print directly from the negative. The gain can only come from post processing the digital file, right?

[mca]

i grew up with film, love my m9, recent bought an m4 and am rediscovering film yet again and i do love it. that being said, as the expression goes, if i used my camera to earn a living i would be using digital without question. the biggest difference to me in the film vs digital is that with digital i have iso as a dynamic variable from shot to shot.

 

one man's opinion anyway.

 

I mostly agree. Although I had to sell my M9 and go back to a Canon 5D2 for financial reasons, I am rediscovering the joy of film through an M6 and 2 Pentax SLRs (MX and ME Super). But I fully agree on the High ISO and dynamic ISO advantage of digital (that and convenience are to me the main advantages) and if I earned a living off photography I would only consider digital.

[mca]

At the risk of missing vital input, I have not read this thread fully, just the OP's opening and the posts on this page. I was mainly attracted by the thread title.

 

My input is that we must each decide for ourselves, which involves more soul searching than is is at first apparent. Most of of mt working life I shot film (no alternative). In latter years, all my work is digital, for what I think are obvious reasons. On the personal indulgence side, I will try to briefly outline a recent comparative experience.

 

I travelled to Antarctica and took an M7, M8 and M9. Mostly I shot the M9, but the M7 produced an interesting response in the form of my first selected prints to blow up. Of the seven A2 framed prints hung on my office walls, only one was colour and digital. All others were B/W film from the M7.

 

This does NOT mean that film or B/W is better than digital or colour. It means that those particular images were preferred by me. Nothing more or less. Anyone seeking to find the best or better medium per se is wasting their time. Choose what you are comfortable working with, for your own reasons, and go do it. You will risk enjoying it!

 

Very interesting contribution. While shooting, how did you decide what camera to use for each shot?

[mca]

Resurging (not my word!) is a bit strong, I'd say.

 

My impression is that it has found its level.

 

Kodak are selling their plant off, having notice such a resurgence in demand that they have killed off all of their E6 films in the last 6 months. Fuji have also been reducing their product line over the last year. Efke are closing their factory.

 

I shoot film much more than I shoot digital (I do not own a digital M), but I am still waiting for a load of new films to come to the market to capitalise on the latent demand from all these new film users... The last new film I can remember is Kodak Ektar, and that was just a substitute for other Kodak film that was vastly superior, IMHO.

 

I agree that film is not dead, nor dying. But I don't think it will resurge either. I see film manufacturers vastly reducing the number of different films they produce, maybe to end with just a few, per brand. It won't end but it will be a niche market, for enthusiasts only. Professionals and point and shoot family photographers have long switched to digital and I don't see them coming back.

 

Of course I am talking about 135 format films. Medium and big formats are way behind in this transition.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Out of curiosity, did you post process the scanned image before printing? I cannot see how the same image, scanned and printed, without any kind of processing applied, could come out better than a print directly from the negative. The gain can only come from post processing the digital file, right?

Just like analog images benefit from careful darkroom work over standard Wallmart prints (assuming they still exist)

[CalArts 99]

Out of curiosity, did you post process the scanned image before printing? I cannot see how the same image, scanned and printed, without any kind of processing applied, could come out better than a print directly from the negative. The gain can only come from post processing the digital file, right?

 

I'm not sure I understand your question exactly but I will give it a try. Sorry if I don't answer it correctly, or say what you might already know. EDIT: I see Jaap has already answered and with much more brevity

 

There is no "without any kind of processing applied" when you scan a piece of film. All scanners use software and each software program is different. The scanner type also differs in respect to design: CCD or CIS or a photomultiplier (PMT.) Scanners also differ from each other in respect to the light source and lenses, etc..

 

You can attempt to scan 'flat' which means you instruct the software to not add any interpretation aside from its own base parameters. But there still is 'processing applied' by the nature of the software itself (and it "enters the digital paradigm" by becoming a digital file.)

 

Scanning 'flat' is often desirable (depending on the specific piece of film and the intended output.) And then yes, it's further edited in an editing program like Photoshop. But the same would be done in a conventional analog process: the film is developed in a specific developer and according to output, and also depending on how the film was exposed the contrast might be increased or lowered. Contrast filters are used or a choice of graded paper and a particular paper developer (in the case of color you'd have to correct using the three adjustable dichroic filters), and unsharp masking (using an in-register positive masked with the negative) if needed for increasing acutance. The enlarger's light source is also an issue to bear in mind as is keeping both the film and paper flat (esp with large prints where a vacuum easel might be needed.) Toning the print with additional chemistry might also be a decision, etc..

 

An advantage with scanning is that you have a completely flat piece of film since the film is wrapped to a drum by a piece of mylar and with liquid applied between the drum and the mylar. The film gets bathed in fluid which helps eliminate scratches and other imperfections from appearing in the scanned file. It also serves the purpose of an anti-newton effect (newton rings are an issue when using a glass negative carrier to keep the film flat in a conventional enlarger.) So immediately there is an advantage in film flatness and diminishing any visual film imperfections.

 

And then you also have the advantage of a digital enlarger that uses precise beams of digitally controlled light (lasers) to record onto the paper which is held completely flat (affixed to a drum.) The light is always consistent (it makes a circular imaging dot) that results in edge to edge sharpness on the paper. The result is a continuous tone print (processed in chemistry) and one that can be quite large (a conventional enlarger would need to be wall mounted with an adjustable vacuum easel.)

 

And add to that the advantages of post processing to adjust color balance, contrast, sharpening, etc., both locally (layer masking) and globally, and you indeed have a product that has the potential of producing a much better print than a conventional workflow. Which is why I personally feel it's certainly not "a waste of time and money" to scan film and make wet prints using a Lambda or Océ.

[KM-25]

Professionals and point and shoot family photographers have long switched to digital and I don't see them coming back.

 

This is your second reference on this page to pros not using film, I am curious where you get this information and why you have not bothered to contest it. Not only do I still use film, I am transitioning away from digital, I am about 30% digital use right now. I also know other pros who have gone back to using film for a portion of their work and there are some that are even 100% film.

 

Not all of us are mainstream nor do we want to be...

 

And CalArts 99, if you are saying a scanned black and white neg prints better than a full analog workflow, I am going to disagree. There is technologically better and there is emotionally better, I just need to wow my customers with great photography, not great technology, so l will pass on computer prints thank you...

[AlanG]

There is technologically better and there is emotionally better, I just need to wow my customers with great photography, not great technology, so l will pass on computer prints thank you...

 

 

The heart of the matter then would be how to determine what is "emotionally better." That is kind of arbitrary but I agree that art buyers do not necessarily study a print to see if the grain is sharp in the corners for instance. (Since you are using that model Beseler 4x5 there is sometimes an issue of lens alignment due to its spring ball-detent lens tilting system intended for perspective control adjustments.)

 

But why wouldn't a buyer's lack of critical requirements also lead nice digital prints to trigger their emotional response? I am now trying to understand if you are saying that some digitally printed images are too good for buyers and turn them off compared to hand printed images that might not be technically "perfect." That is kind of the reverse argument from what we usually see in analogue vs. digital print discussions.

[KM-25]

The heart of the matter then would be how to determine what is "emotionally better." That is kind of arbitrary but I agree that art buyers do not necessarily study a print to see if the grain is sharp in the corners for instance. (Since you are using that model Beseler 4x5 there is sometimes an issue of lens alignment due to its spring ball-detent lens tilting system intended for perspective control adjustments.)

 

But why wouldn't a buyer's lack of critical requirements also lead nice digital prints to trigger their emotional response? I am now trying to understand if you are saying that some digitally printed images are too good for buyers and turn them off compared to hand printed images that might not be technically "perfect." That is kind of the reverse argument from what we usually see in analogue vs. digital print discussions.

 

 

I have since done some custom mods to my 45MXT's alignments, have a friend with a machine shop and I love to fab custom stuff. I use a laser alignment tool for a fast check on every print session, every time I change the neg or the height setting.

 

Basically it boils down to my ability to best connect with the entire process on an emotional level which will lead to me making a better product from a creative standpoint......if I am at my best in terms of creative output, then that is where the customers "wow" comes in. I don't want to use digital for everything in my life, so I choose different on some things and photography is one of those places I make that choice. Thankfully for me, it also happens to be my career.

[CalArts 99]

And CalArts 99, if you are saying a scanned black and white neg prints better than a full analog workflow, I am going to disagree. There is technologically better and there is emotionally better, I just need to wow my customers with great photography, not great technology, so l will pass on computer prints thank you...

 

And there can be both 'technologically better' and 'emotionally better' in one package. They aren't exclusive. Personally, it's not about 'better technology' alone, it's only about trying to take advantage of the best of both worlds.

 

A hybrid workflow is better for me. If it's not your cup of tea, that's fine. But it's certainly not appropriate to assume that one does not place content as the paramount issue in their own work simply because they use a particular technology.

[AlanG]

I have since done some custom mods to my 45MXT's alignments, have a friend with a machine shop and I love to fab custom stuff. I use a laser alignment tool for a fast check on every print session, every time I change the neg or the height setting.

 

Well you solved the problem but it is a shame one has to go to that much trouble just to get even sharpness. They made the model CB7 for a while which had a more precise alignment method. I used to use glass carriers and a vacuum easel for large prints but that added a dust spot problem. I checked with a grain focuser in the center and all corners. I can't say I miss any of this. I presume you are not making color prints in your darkroom.

[mca]

I'm not sure I understand your question exactly but I will give it a try. Sorry if I don't answer it correctly, or say what you might already know. EDIT: I see Jaap has already answered and with much more brevity

 

There is no "without any kind of processing applied" when you scan a piece of film. All scanners use software and each software program is different. The scanner type also differs in respect to design: CCD or CIS or a photomultiplier (PMT.) Scanners also differ from each other in respect to the light source and lenses, etc..

 

You can attempt to scan 'flat' which means you instruct the software to not add any interpretation aside from its own base parameters. But there still is 'processing applied' by the nature of the software itself (and it "enters the digital paradigm" by becoming a digital file.)

 

Scanning 'flat' is often desirable (depending on the specific piece of film and the intended output.) And then yes, it's further edited in an editing program like Photoshop. But the same would be done in a conventional analog process: the film is developed in a specific developer and according to output, and also depending on how the film was exposed the contrast might be increased or lowered. Contrast filters are used or a choice of graded paper and a particular paper developer (in the case of color you'd have to correct using the three adjustable dichroic filters), and unsharp masking (using an in-register positive masked with the negative) if needed for increasing acutance. The enlarger's light source is also an issue to bear in mind as is keeping both the film and paper flat (esp with large prints where a vacuum easel might be needed.) Toning the print with additional chemistry might also be a decision, etc..

 

An advantage with scanning is that you have a completely flat piece of film since the film is wrapped to a drum by a piece of mylar and with liquid applied between the drum and the mylar. The film gets bathed in fluid which helps eliminate scratches and other imperfections from appearing in the scanned file. It also serves the purpose of an anti-newton effect (newton rings are an issue when using a glass negative carrier to keep the film flat in a conventional enlarger.) So immediately there is an advantage in film flatness and diminishing any visual film imperfections.

 

And then you also have the advantage of a digital enlarger that uses precise beams of digitally controlled light (lasers) to record onto the paper which is held completely flat (affixed to a drum.) The light is always consistent (it makes a circular imaging dot) that results in edge to edge sharpness on the paper. The result is a continuous tone print (processed in chemistry) and one that can be quite large (a conventional enlarger would need to be wall mounted with an adjustable vacuum easel.)

 

And add to that the advantages of post processing to adjust color balance, contrast, sharpening, etc., both locally (layer masking) and globally, and you indeed have a product that has the potential of producing a much better print than a conventional workflow. Which is why I personally feel it's certainly not "a waste of time and money" to scan film and make wet prints using a Lambda or Océ.

 

Thank you for your technical explanation. I was referring to processing during the scan (like you said, most softwares can do it) and also post processing in photoshop or some other.

 

So what you're saying is that the gain is in the digital process that eliminates the imperfections of the traditional process and opens up a world of possibilities of improving the image on post processing (photoshop) afterwards. I agree with this.

[CalArts 99]

I have since done some custom mods to my 45MXT's alignments, have a friend with a machine shop and I love to fab custom stuff. I use a laser alignment tool for a fast check on every print session, every time I change the neg or the height setting.

 

Basically it boils down to my ability to best connect with the entire process on an emotional level which will lead to me making a better product from a creative standpoint......if I am at my best in terms of creative output, then that is where the customers "wow" comes in. I don't want to use digital for everything in my life, so I choose different on some things and photography is one of those places I make that choice. Thankfully for me, it also happens to be my career.

 

Then it appears that you value a level of technical perfection also. And in the image that you posted it clearly (and specifically) shows a Hasselblad, several flavors of film, and a cold light head on your 45MXT. You are basically concerned about (and are doing) the same thing except in a fully analog version.

 

And if that gives you a charge emotionally, then that's all good. But please don't negate others who may receive the same sort of emotion with their own personal version of the craft.

 

And you're not really being 'different.' Most of us come from a long history of using film. You are simply choosing to use it in the manner that you see fit. That's not being 'different' than the 'masses' (as you have put it), it's simply sticking with something you prefer.

 

I don't see any difference of what you are doing from what all of us are doing. You are a craftsperson working with 100% analog products, I'm a craftsperson working with a hybrid workflow, and Alan is a craftsperson working in 100% digital. We all try to achieve a high level of technical competence along with a huge emotional investment.

 

I teach in a university art department and so photography is also a career in which I am fully invested. I'm also surrounded by colleagues using various media. Whether it's pigment, ink, or metal, they all have their own methodologies and material choices along with a full emotional commitment (at the university level, a teaching position is based on one's exhibition record and not so much their technical prowess.)

 

Just for the record, my earlier post was how a particular print of mine (from three 6x9 negatives) was made for an exhibition catalog. It was a much better print over what was made in the darkroom alone. I had much more latitude in order to get what I wanted in the print. Plus the final print was was a triptych which would have been extremely difficult to do otherwise. I had made an earlier print that was 100% analog and it just didn't compare. Lots of artists around here are using the Océ (including Richard Misrach whose work is very critical in terms of contrast and color.) It's not about compromising the 'emotional' side. But if it does make one feel compromised, then one has to do what is best within their own personal realm.

[mca]

This is your second reference on this page to pros not using film, I am curious where you get this information and why you have not bothered to contest it. Not only do I still use film, I am transitioning away from digital, I am about 30% digital use right now. I also know other pros who have gone back to using film for a portion of their work and there are some that are even 100% film.

 

Not all of us are mainstream nor do we want to be...

 

And CalArts 99, if you are saying a scanned black and white neg prints better than a full analog workflow, I am going to disagree. There is technologically better and there is emotionally better, I just need to wow my customers with great photography, not great technology, so l will pass on computer prints thank you...

 

Sorry I didn't mean to offend you and I fully respect your choice

 

My statement is based on the fair amount of photographers I know in Portugal. I don't know a single professional photographer (wedding, events, concerts, journalists, etc) who still use 35mm film cameras instead of digital. Not a single one.

 

I am not talking about medium format, nor am I talking about photographers that use film as an extra candy when they deliver their work to their clients.

 

Anyway my point was that the advantages of digital for people who have to deliver reliable and quick results are so huge that I don't see a point in manufacturers of film investing money for this professional market, only for enthusiasts, and therefore it will become a niche market and the variety of films available to us will be much lower than it is today. That was my main opinion.

[KM-25]

I agree with this, 100%.

 

But the problems remain that because of the timing of the Internet information age and an ever increasing interest in technology over artistry or vision in photography in broad terms, film based photography needlessly takes a brutal beating on not a daily but hourly basis across the Internet. Berating film or the film user has literally become a big new subset of the social photography sphere.

 

I feel like if I just mosey along happily using film and never say anything, I am not doing the medium I love any favors, hence the post above by MCA that he does not know any pros who use film and therefore seems to think that there are none and it is worthless for film makers like Kodak, Fuji or Ilford to to invest in the making of and marketng of film for pros.

 

This is wide spread misinformation based on both digital hype and people's lack of motivation in finding out what the actual truth is. I call it the "Little Bubble of Convenient Information" in that one just assumes the color of the front lawn in their own yard is the same as the one 6,000 miles away, therefore stating to all that all grass is the same color.

 

It's ok if you want to believe something is better, dead, the best, not worth it, perfect, etc. But the nauseating issues to me are in the way people present these opinions as fact that applies to everyone or that what the majority does matters to everyone. Why even talk about the majority here, it's not like Leica has ever been that by the way...

 

 

Then it appears that you value a level of technical perfection also. And in the image that you posted it clearly (and specifically) shows a Hasselblad, several flavors of film, and a cold light head on your 45MXT. You are basically concerned about (and are doing) the same thing except in a fully analog version.

 

And if that gives you a charge emotionally, then that's all good. But please don't negate others who may receive the same sort of emotion with their own personal version of the craft.

 

And you're not really being 'different.' Most of us come from a long history of using film. You are simply choosing to use it in the manner that you see fit. That's not being 'different' than the 'masses' (as you have put it), it's simply sticking with something you prefer.

 

I don't see any difference of what you are doing from what all of us are doing. You are a craftsperson working with 100% analog products, I'm a craftsperson working with a hybrid workflow, and Alan is a craftsperson working in 100% digital. We all try to achieve a high level of technical competence along with a huge emotional investment.

 

I teach in a university art department and so photography is also a career in which I am fully invested. I'm also surrounded by colleagues using various media. Whether it's pigment, ink, or metal, they all have their own methodologies and material choices along with a full emotional commitment (at the university level, a teaching position is based on one's exhibition record and not so much their technical prowess.)

 

Just for the record, my earlier post was how a particular print of mine (from three 6x9 negatives) was made for an exhibition catalog. It was a much better print over what was made in the darkroom alone. I had much more latitude in order to get what I wanted in the print. Plus the final print was was a triptych which would have been extremely difficult to do otherwise. I had made an earlier print that was 100% analog and it just didn't compare. Lots of artists around here are using the Océ (including Richard Misrach whose work is very critical in terms of contrast and color.) It's not about compromising the 'emotional' side. But if it does make one feel compromised, then one has to do what is best within their own personal realm.

[AlanG]

I agree with this, 100%.

 

I feel like if I just mosey along happily using film and never say anything, I am not doing the medium I love any favors, hence the post above by MCA that he does not know any pros who use film and therefore seems to think that there are none and it is worthless for film makers like Kodak, Fuji or Ilford to to invest in the making of and marketng of film for pros.

 

 

That's fine but it is not as if Kodak et al did not try to keep the film and analogue side going and they promoted it pretty extensively for quite a long time. Yet usage declined.

 

The distinction you are making is one of artistic choice and personal expression and that is much different from MCA's post which is simply about practical photography by pros and others.

 

What you are doing is appealing to people to expand their artistic vision by trying the film/wet print process. And that is certainly a worthwhile endeavor. But you might as well also suggest they try alternative processes, photo silk screening, etc. in order to broaden their awareness of how these might lead one in a new direction. I spent half a year exploring photo silkscreen printing but I can't say that is the way for everyone to go.

 

However I do recommend that everyone at least get their feet wet in as many things as possible... if that aspect of photography interests them. On the other hand I've known a lot of very very good photographers who never stepped foot in a darkroom and were only concerned with capturing the image and directing someone else how to print it. In my own situation, my knowledge derived from various printing techniques and processes gave me a leg up in moving to digital printing.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[tomasis7]

I agree with this, 100%.

 

But the problems remain that because of the timing of the Internet information age and an ever increasing interest in technology over artistry or vision in photography in broad terms, film based photography needlessly takes a brutal beating on not a daily but hourly basis across the Internet. Berating film or the film user has literally become a big new subset of the social photography sphere.

 

I feel like if I just mosey along happily using film and never say anything, I am not doing the medium I love any favors, hence the post above by MCA that he does not know any pros who use film and therefore seems to think that there are none and it is worthless for film makers like Kodak, Fuji or Ilford to to invest in the making of and marketng of film for pros.

 

This is wide spread misinformation based on both digital hype and people's lack of motivation in finding out what the actual truth is. I call it the "Little Bubble of Convenient Information" in that one just assumes the color of the front lawn in their own yard is the same as the one 6,000 miles away, therefore stating to all that all grass is the same color.

 

It's ok if you want to believe something is better, dead, the best, not worth it, perfect, etc. But the nauseating issues to me are in the way people present these opinions as fact that applies to everyone or that what the majority does matters to everyone. Why even talk about the majority here, it's not like Leica has ever been that by the way...

 

WORD!

 

the most stubborn ones remain

[IkarusJohn]

I have my M3 sitting on the shelf across from my desk, loaded with Tri-X; half a dozen rolls in the drawer; mixing jugs, thermometers, developer, fixer etc in the cupboard and a scanner next to my printer.

 

I love having my M3 - no battery, no meter, just all mechanical, chrome and vulcanite. It appeals to every sense in my body.

 

But, the thought of mixing chemicals, getting temperatures right, drying negatives, getting watermarks off, dealing with fluff and dust, scanning and getting a good enough image makes me feel tired. Clearly I don't do it enough - I have a growing pile of exposed film in the drawer ...

 

The thought of wet printing is enough to put me off completely.

 

If I get everything right (in my film development), then I will still be sitting in front of my computer, adjusting things in LR4 or SEP2. So, with film I gain the simplicity of my M3 and the benefit of a film image over a sensor image (jury's out for me on that), but lose on developing and scanning ...

 

Some love that chemical process, I guess. I'm not one of them.

 

Still love that M3, though. If I get the M Monochrom, I wonder if I'll use it much.

 

Cheers

John