Practicality of using a film Leica in the digital age?

[honcho]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

......If somebody wants to rob me of my precious gear. I hope my insurance will replace everything. But I have been in several cities the last 20 years ( also in Germany:)) . I never had any problems walking around with two Leica's. It's very rewarding making pictures and printing b&w with an M6/MP. Don't be afraid, just enjoy!

 

I suspect most would-be robbers and muggers would be more interested in the victim's phone than a film camera!

 

With the usual common sense precautions, a Leica, a few rolls of film and a couple of lenses make for a liberating travel outfit. As said, just get on with enjoying it!

[Paulus]

I suspect most would-be robbers and muggers would be more interested in the victim's phone than a film camera!

 

With the usual common sense precautions, a Leica, a few rolls of film and a couple of lenses make for a liberating travel outfit. As said, just get on with enjoying it!

 

 

Oh I won't want them to steal my phone, I have grown attatched to it these 10 years.

[Rolo]

Scanning, for me, is not a chore. I actually enjoy it. It is just another step in appreciating my image, like viewing the freshly processed film, or watching the image magically appear in the dev tray. It's all magic.

 

That's how I feel. I've speeded up my process by reading a complete strip as a single image on my Imacon, so it's relatively very efficient. It's to be enjoyed, just as after 40 years I still view my first couple of negs on the spiral for the first time whilst they're still in the fixer.

[pico]

Why do people use film and then scan? What is your target? Is it to display your pictures in the 'net and that is the end of it?

 

Just curious.

[desu]

Why do people use film and then scan? What is your target? Is it to display your pictures in the 'net and that is the end of it?

 

Just curious.

 

Not everyone has space for a darkroom to make prints. And even scanned the film retains its unique look. But it is frustrating how you need a very expensive scanner to get all the detail out of the film.

[erl]

Why do people use film and then scan? What is your target? Is it to display your pictures in the 'net and that is the end of it?

 

Just curious.

Pico my target is to produce hardcopy prints, as a primary need. However I do also produce greeting cards that can only be designed, from a practical POV, on a computer. You may notice in my signature that I dabble in producing books. The only way to achieve that is to scan images.

 

I have just this last weekend reinvigorated my darkroom for printing (I always kept it operational for developing) but after 60 years of analog printing and maybe 10+ years of digital printing, I am convinced that the best quality prints come from properly executed digital. However, the most satisfying experience will always be the darkroom. It is another world.

 

Summarized: Both techniques are useful. Just another tool in the end requirement.

 

P.S. I rarely post images on the net. Not much point for me.

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not everyone has space for a darkroom to make prints. And even scanned the film retains its unique look. But it is frustrating how you need a very expensive scanner to get all the detail out of the film.

 

 

We differ, and that Is is okay. I am one lousy scanner. My stuff is from wet room prints and my scans suck. I strongly disagree that scanned negatives retain 'the look'.

[erl]

We differ, and that Is is okay. I am one lousy scanner. My stuff is from wet room prints and my scans suck. I strongly disagree that scanned negatives retain 'the look'.

Pico, you are right, we do differ and that is OK.

However, a (properly) scanned negative can retain an original look. The 'problem' is that scanning does recover more detail, dynamic range, than a darkroom print. Part of the character of a darkroom print, IMO, is the compressed tonal range. If my ancient theory can be relied on, a well exposed and processed B&W film can reproduce tones in a ratio of approx 144:1. A good darkroom print can reproduce from that film only about 80:1.

 

Now the problem IMO is that properly scanned, that film will surrender up much more detail and tonal range than 80:1. This extra detain and tonal range is so often too much and can look like an unprocessed RAW file. Some compression is necessary to make it look like we are used to. On the occasions that we are unable to extract the max from a darkroom print, the digital scan can more readily achieve that desire.

 

All the above is based on my experience, which while not complete, is quite extensive. It keeps me as a happy camper, still with higher goals.

[CalArts 99]

I strongly disagree that scanned negatives retain 'the look'.

 

Long ago I used to feel the same way. But when I was asked for a print of mine to be represented in an exhibition and book publication some years ago ('This Side of Paradise' at the Huntington Library, Art Collections and Botanical Gardens - LA Times ) I had the 6x9 C-41 negatives (the print is a triptych of three separate images) scanned on an Aztek drum scanner and printed on RA-4 paper (Fuji Crystal Archive) with the Océ Lightjet laser printer. The result of the Lightjet is better uniformity, density, and color accuracy then a conventional enlarger with a single light bulb projecting through filters (instead of the three separate RGB light sources from the laser printer.)

 

And the finished print looked like an analog print from film, just like the original optical print that was produced several years ago. In fact, it was much better than the original. And the studio that produced the file was also able to improve the file in Photoshop prior to final printing.

 

I'm now pretty well satisfied with scanning film, editing digitally, and printing chemically as an option to conventional darkroom methods. It still looks exactly like film and looks like an optical print. And also B+W carbon ink prints on cotton rag paper from scanned film can look extraordinary, too. They still retain the grain and 'dimension' of the film they originated from.

[erl]

As with film, digital is still heavily dependent on operator skills.

 

The thing that irks me is, that digitally you can 'undo' mistakes till you get it right. (clever monkey syndrome), whereas with darkroom stuff (analog), when you get it right, you know it is your hands and brain that got it right! Yes!

[philipus]

Why do people use film and then scan? What is your target? Is it to display your pictures in the 'net and that is the end of it?

 

Just curious.

 

This is a really valid question, I think. I replied earlier to the OP's questions about the practicality but didn't write about my own reasons, so here they are, more or less, including why I scan.

 

I shoot film because I love the process and the fact that I have a tangible artefact that was with me at the time I photographed. That is a sentimental aspect and, of course, at the time I began photographing - as a 1980s teenager on the island of Gotland in Sweden - there was no digital photography so this sort of philosophically pompous epiphany-type realisation talk is a post-analogue era construct. For the longest time the question my friends asked was rather why I photographed at all, but that's another matter all together.

 

That said, with the advent of viable digital photography I realised that having a physical object as carrier of the photograph does amount to a major emotional aspect of film photography, which is also in line with the general tangibility of film, from the film itself in its many shapes, to the resulting negatives to the prints. Still, it seems to me, this aspect is something that is defined in the negative; it is the absense of this aspect in digital photography which strengthens, or even is the source of, the importance of tangibility for film-based photography.

 

I always shot colour, and pretty much exclusively Velvia 50 pushed one stop because I loved rich colours. I even added polarisers sometimes. I realised in the early 00s (noughties?) that scanning would allow me the best of both worlds. I could shoot Velvia and display my images on my computer which very handily did away with the need for a projector. While I shot all those years during the pre-digital era I had on occasion used my parents' projector but it was a hassle to set up. This led me to use one of those small slide viewers one could use near a window or a bright light. Not at all the same thing.

 

I have always enjoyed sharing photos digitally, but dislike the look of digital. Scanning therefore became a practical solution to the conundrum of how to most easily view and share my film images. And it enabled me to learn post-processing to make my photos look like I want them to look.

 

Printing from the computer came much later. I considered buying a printer 8-10 years ago but it is in fact only since I began shooting M some years ago that I bought a printer. Prices had then dropped quite a lot and one could get fairly competent printers for reasonable money, all, of course, depending on one's requirements. So these days I print and try to improve my printing skills. While I have over the last decade become pretty competent with my Coolscans I am not at all there yet with my printing skills. I hope that will change over time but even with my current level I am able to produce prints that are of sufficient quality for my needs, which include having photos at home and also occasionally giving photos to family and friends. They would not, though, match anything that professionals can produce, I am certain of that.

 

I should add that I am intent on learning black and white darkroom printing, something that I have never learnt. It may seem odd, having photographed for so many years, but the fact is that the number of black and white rolls I shot in my pre-Leica days are very few, perhaps less than ten. I am very much a colour photographer, even for traditional black and white genres like street photography.

 

But, I am intrigued by darkroom printing and feel I want to know how to do this. This has, in turn, led me to consider learning how to print colour photographs in the darkroom. I might consider developing, too, but it would be as a matter of curiosity because where I live I have access to very inexpensive and good development facilities for colour film. So darkroom printing is my next learning curve to be added to the already ongoing curves concerning scanning and digital printing. But even if I become so good at darkroom printing that I can produce prints that look as good as my digital prints, I will continue scanning.

 

Philip

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

I scan film as a quick and easy way of doing a contact sheet and for posting to web/email etc. before selecting and making a final analogue print in the darkroom.

 

Given this and the lovely equipment from RH Designs film is actually a lot more practical to use now than it ever was. No wonder it is still around and used by so many people. I absolutely love it!

[too old to care]

A few years ago, after returning to film for my B&W images, I bought a film scanner because I had closed my darkroom years earlier. After printing for awhile digitally my images, I realized that I did not enjoy the process as much as I though I would. I reopened my darkroom, even added some new equipment, and put my scanner away. It is seldom used now, and when it is, it is only used to post something on the internet. It has nothing to do with quality, or ease, but my enjoyment of smelling chemicals again, working in the dark, and realizing if the image looks good, I did it right from taking the photo, to final printing.

 

Wayne

[pico]

I scan film as a quick and easy way of doing a contact sheet and for posting to web/email etc. before selecting and making a final analogue print in the darjroom

 

 

I mention the following not to one-up anyone, but to document an early trend. When I became a staff news photographer we never made contact sheets; instead we had loupes that took 35mm film through a track. When a frame looked interesting we pressed a tab on the device which punched a hole in the edge by the selected frame. Leica made one these loupes, so did a Soviet company.

 

Have not done a contact sheet since 1972.

 

It is a very interesting way to work, for one reason - we could see right away if a shot was sharp, something a contact could not show well enough.

[pico]

Take one camera if you wish. That is what I did for years before I was comfortable with buying a spare body, an M4. It was liberating. I loved traveling light.

 

Have a good trip!

[menos I M6]

I have no ability to wet print.

 

I print everything digitally, so film based photographs get digitally printed as well.

Only a very small portion of what I do is film based, yet I have heavily upgraded my scanning workflow to accommodate best possible scanning quality short of investing in a Imacon or drum scanner.

[erl]

Exactly my position, although I have had parallel capacity for many years.

 

My darkroom has been 'half closed' for several years, but last W/E I cleared the junk out and re-invigorated the wet bench area. It now remains to 'mix the fix', so to speak, and turn on the safe light.

[sblitz]

Even printing a scanned negative digitally there is a difference vs a digital photo (M9). Not necessarily a good or a bad, just different and it is a difference I appreciate. If there was a shot I wanted to print for posterity I would more than likely go to a professional shop and have it wet printed the old-fashioned way. Living in NYC all these options are still readily available with choices.

[erl]

I agree about the difference of the source of the image. It is real, just like choosing a different film, it gives a different look.

 

As for printing something for posterity, if I were to do that, it would first of all have my name on it, otherwise it seems pointless. Having my name on it I must them invoke my favourite acronym. WIDDDH. What I Don't Do Dosen't Happen.

 

I shoot it, develop it, print it,right down to the framing and hanging, I do it.

 

That way I have had all the fun.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M