Stealth3kpl Posted July 1, 2014 Share #41 Posted July 1, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) In the days of low resolution digital cameras there was merit in processing and scanning negs. So unless you are using a large format camera (or at least medium format), just get a decent digital camera. Where's the fun in that? Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 Hi Stealth3kpl, Take a look here How do ppl who shoot film generally process the film ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
honcho Posted July 1, 2014 Share #42 Posted July 1, 2014 In the days of low resolution digital cameras there was merit in processing and scanning negs. So unless you are using a large format camera (or at least medium format), just get a decent digital camera.... Sometimes, one just has to laugh.......... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybob Posted July 1, 2014 Share #43 Posted July 1, 2014 I have shot and home processed C-41 using a Jobo TBE for temp control, with the Unicolor/Jobo kits, and then scanned with Kodak and Nikon scanners. One or 2 rolls is fine, but for the most part, sending color neg out seems like a better use of time. I have not had the greatest experience with the Stabilizer in the kits. For B&W (I shoot Tmax 100 and 400 and usually push the 400 to 1600/2000) I use D-76, stop, Fix and Wash. For me, B&W is easier than dealing with color. I enjoy the process more, get better looking negatives, and I can scan and save 7 or 8 rolls in really hi resolution 16bit B&W files in a short afternoon. I bought a Leitz Focomat V35 AF enlarger quite a while ago that along with the rest of my darkroom, isn't set up. I remember being in several newspaper darkrooms in the late 90s with 7 or 8 of those sitting around unused even then. It's a fine machine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybob Posted July 1, 2014 Share #44 Posted July 1, 2014 M6 w/Voigtlander 35 1.4 SC Tmax400 at 2000 D76 1 to 1 for 17 minutes Kodak RFS 2035/3570 Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/229208-how-do-ppl-who-shoot-film-generally-process-the-film/?do=findComment&comment=2622173'>More sharing options...
Phil U Posted July 2, 2014 Share #45 Posted July 2, 2014 That's a superlative photograph, Jaybob. Excellent stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicaphilia Posted July 2, 2014 Share #46 Posted July 2, 2014 In the days of low resolution digital cameras there was merit in processing and scanning negs. So unless you are using a large format camera (or at least medium format), just get a decent digital camera. I suspect you took up your photography avocation after the digital revolution, as this statement is dying to be called out as just plain ignorant (unless of course your only criterion for a successful photograph is resolution, which is pretty shortsighted and pedestrian.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted July 2, 2014 Share #47 Posted July 2, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) In the days of low resolution digital cameras there was merit in processing and scanning negs. So unless you are using a large format camera (or at least medium format), just get a decent digital camera. Having said that if you are using film, please make silver prints, in B&W - it far surpasses any enjoyment you will get from digital printing. The paper quality is far superior, although paper manufacturers are advancing all the time. For monochrome try Epsom traditional photo paper. I suspect an oxymoron here. On the one hand you are advocating the superiority of the digital camera over the analog, the implication being that better resolution is obtained that way. On the other hand you are suggesting silver printing (analog) is preferable to digital printing. I agree that darkroom printing can be more pleasing, but experience and observation tells me that digital printing is capable of more than can be done in the darkroom. This is ignoring operator skills I should add. So for technical superiority I would agree digital is the winner, but that is totally ignoring the reason, I would venture, that most film aficionados use film. Some reasons might be the ergonomics of the camera, the smell of the film and chemicals, the tactile hands on experience of being the creator, the knowledge that a mistake cannot (mostly) be corrected if you get it wrong the first time and that feeling between one's ears that you are 'being real'. Don't try to understand all of that, especially the last bit. It is just me unapologetically being me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted July 2, 2014 Share #48 Posted July 2, 2014 In the days of low resolution digital cameras there was merit in processing and scanning negs. So unless you are using a large format camera (or at least medium format), just get a decent digital camera. Second post on the forum and already trolling the film section. Impeccable style! Did give me a good laugh though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dct Posted July 2, 2014 Share #49 Posted July 2, 2014 [...]but that is totally ignoring the reason' date=' I would venture, that most film aficionados use film. Some reasons might be <b>the ergonomics of the camera</b>, the smell of the film and chemicals, the tactile hands on experience of being the creator, the knowledge that a mistake cannot (mostly) be corrected if you get it wrong the first time and that feeling between one's ears that you are 'being real'. Don't try to understand all of that, especially the last bit. It is just me unapologetically being me. [/quote']To 90% for me exactly <b>this</b>! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted July 2, 2014 Share #50 Posted July 2, 2014 most film aficionados use film. Some reasons might be the ergonomics of the camera, the smell of the film and chemicals, the tactile hands on experience of being the creator, the knowledge that a mistake cannot (mostly) be corrected if you get it wrong the first time and that feeling between one's ears that you are 'being real'. I also agree with Erl on all of the above - but I'd just add that an identical scene shot with a digital and a film camera will render totally differently in the final image - especially when using lenses like a Noctilux wide open, that introduces special characteristics to the transitions and out-of-focus areas which will give the images a very different appearance. Obviously if you judge a photographic image purely on the basis of sharpness and resolution, then digital would indeed be the way to to go. Bit like judging a work of art by how many brushstrokes the artist used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted July 2, 2014 Share #51 Posted July 2, 2014 Bit like judging a work of art by how many brushstrokes the artist used. A good analogy, and not unlike the new rich class during the industrial revolution, without ancient family inventories they would buy books by the yard to kit out the new library in their new country mansion. Buying resolution isn't so dissimilar, buy what you need to be one up on your peers and the job is done, there are no further photographic complications like judgement, artistry, or technical skill to worry about,.... just so long as your pictures remain unseen. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted July 2, 2014 Share #52 Posted July 2, 2014 A good analogy, and not unlike the new rich class during the industrial revolution, without ancient family inventories they would buy books by the yard to kit out the new library in their new country mansion. I was surprised to see an antique book dealer sell a very nice collection of French books by the yard a few years ago, bound in white leather to match white decor. Actually I was shocked and dispirited. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicaphilia Posted July 2, 2014 Share #53 Posted July 2, 2014 M6 w/Voigtlander 35 1.4 SC Tmax400 at 2000 D76 1 to 1 for 17 minutes Kodak RFS 2035/3570 Great shot...but deepen those blacks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted July 3, 2014 Share #54 Posted July 3, 2014 My absolute favorite was Cibachrome. Lord, I have 30 year old prints as good as if thy were done yesterday, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybob Posted July 3, 2014 Share #55 Posted July 3, 2014 Nudged the levels of the small jpg a tad for the screen. Better, yes? I used a Kodak 2035+ scanner, VueScan, edited in LR 4, the nudge in PS CS5. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/229208-how-do-ppl-who-shoot-film-generally-process-the-film/?do=findComment&comment=2623100'>More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted July 3, 2014 Share #56 Posted July 3, 2014 My absolute favorite was Cibachrome. Lord, I have 30 year old prints as good as if thy were done yesterday, Now gone, very sadly. This was the preferred medium for many museums, largely because of its permanence. The Victoria and Albert in London has some jaw dropping examples. In addition, it could be exposed by Durst Lambda and similar laser-driven systems, and therefore from modern digital files. A best-quality M240 file onto Cibachrome whets the appetite. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.