Are there any benefits of using film compared to digital

[mikemgb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mike , except you need a water bath for the temperature , color process is easier and faster. 

Only dev+fix+ stab and one roll costs less 2 Euros... and you can develop even a sunday

no scratches and work well done.

Henry

 

I do my own colour but keeping the temperature stable is more difficult than black and white. I did try some recently at 30°C since that it the highest temperature the heater I use will maintain the water at. The results were OK but everything had a slight magenta cast.

[Doc Henry]

I do my own colour but keeping the temperature stable is more difficult than black and white. I did try some recently at 30°C since that it the highest temperature the heater I use will maintain the water at. The results were OK but everything had a slight magenta cast.

 

Yes Mike I admit that some pictures can have a slight magenta * , the reason ? but you can also have it in 38°C

I compared 38 and 30 , no difference in color. I posted some pictures in I like film thread !

Henry

* you can have the same thing with digital

Edited February 21, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Advertisement]

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

[oolong5]

Agree at 200%. Thanks

It's interesting to see how others interpret the scenes you are familiar with. I'm also based in Sydney.

Thanks for sharing.

[Doc Henry]

It's interesting to see how others interpret the scenes you are familiar with. I'm also based in Sydney.

Thanks for sharing.

 

Oolong , and with this link , another proof ... at 105 years old , "surely benefits to use film"

"Believe me" (look at my age) and  " I am a photographer ", said this brave lady

Long life to this lady and long life to film !

http://vnexpress.net/photo/cuoc-song-do-day/nhiep-anh-gia-105-tuoi-van-say-nghe-o-trung-quoc-3555491.html

Best

Henry

Edited April 7, 2017 by Doc Henry

[roscoetuff]

Part of the fun I'm finding in a personal return to Leica and film (M4-2 and soon an M6 TTL) lies in the pure experience and in-depth exposure to the whole shooting process. Film can feed your deeper understanding of digital and the thought processes behind the ergonomics of post-processing software design. I think the two are complimentary and have no doubt that there is much to be gained. And film is a very deep well to learn from. It will make you a better photographer. Though I've gone about this with Leica, you could just easily and less expensively go about it with a Nikon F3 or similar for considerably less. I'm developing my B&W and really having fun with it. Film is one of the gifts amateurs have open to them... but like so many things, not everyone will choose to unwrap the gift. Enjoy it if you can. 

[Steve Ricoh]

I read something interesting on phoblographer recently, it said that when scanning a negative all you're doing is taking a photograph of the the negative. It went on to say if you want to obtain maximum benefit from film ithen printing direct from the negative is the best solution.

[Ko.Fe.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Back to the question in the title. We went for the hike at lower Niagara river yesterday. I took two Leica cameras with me. M8 for color pictures of my daughter and family friends. M3 for making bw darkroom prints later.

For basic ISO100-400 bw photography I still prefer bw film. 

 

The only reason why I convert M8 files to bw is because it sometimes looks better in BW

 

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!

 

 

 

 

 

[pop]

I read something interesting on phoblographer recently, it said that when scanning a negative all you're doing is taking a photograph of the the negative. It went on to say if you want to obtain maximum benefit from film ithen printing direct from the negative is the best solution.

Eh, well. You print directly from a negative by - taking a photograph of the negative. How else.

[Steve Ricoh]

Eh, well. You print directly from a negative by - taking a photograph of the negative. How else.

By using an enlarger and photosensitive paper.

[pop]

By using an enlarger and photosensitive paper.

Quite. The process of recording the photograph on a film is the same as projecting the image off the negative on a paper. It amounts to taking a photograph of the negative on a sheet of sensitive paper.

[Steve Ricoh]

Quite. The process of recording the photograph on a film is the same as projecting the image off the negative on a paper. It amounts to taking a photograph of the negative on a sheet of sensitive paper.

Taking your stance, is the result better or worse than taking a picture of the negative by scanning and then digitally printing - Assuming a high grade enlarger system including lens (presumably described by an even light source over the negative and a lens described in the usual way lines/mm etc), and a high grade scanner (I've no idea how to describe definitively) and printer (=> 300 dpi)?

[pico]

I read something interesting on phoblographer recently, it said that when scanning a negative all you're doing is taking a photograph of the the negative. It went on to say if you want to obtain maximum benefit from film ithen printing direct from the negative is the best solution.

 

With respect, I disagree. I have 50 years experience in enlarger printing.

 

It is difficult to differentiate our experiences. Speaking only for myself I cannot get the impression of print-depth of an analog silver print from an ink-jet printer. Any help in that regard would be greatly appreciated.

 

I do know that I can get sharper screen presentation results from scanning a negative. We all know that analog projection printing (which is all we have for 35mm) drops resolution. It is physics. Gosh darn the laws of nature.

Edited April 9, 2017 by pico

[pop]

Taking your stance, is the result better or worse than taking a picture of the negative by scanning and then digitally printing - Assuming a high grade enlarger system including lens (presumably described by an even light source over the negative and a lens described in the usual way lines/mm etc), and a high grade scanner (I've no idea how to describe definitively) and printer (=> 300 dpi)?

I do not have to take any stance. An enlarger is a photographic camera. The process of making an enlargement is the same as taking a photograph. The lens will impose its characteristics on the resulting print, as will the geometry of the enlarger and a largish number of other factors.

 

There's no way around it. If you have a small negative and want to have a larger print, you have to copy the small negative in some way or other. 

 

The result depends on the skills of the person doing the print and on the quality of his equipment or material.

[pico]

Analog, enlarger printing, will diminish resolution. If we print using an enlarger even with a high resolution lens, the outcome will always be less than the resolution of the negative. Physics

Edited April 9, 2017 by pico

[Steve Ricoh]

Get it. But don't forget I wasn't out for an argument, or trolling, just quoting Phoblographer.

Similar physics with scanning negs, then printing.

[EoinC]

As noted, whether scanning and inverting, or enlarging to a silver print, you are taking a photograph of a negative to produce a positive image. Both lead to some loss of the fidelity of the negative. If using larger formats, contact printing offers a closer match.

 

I agree with Pico's point, though - Silver-based wet printing can bring a greater depth than is achieved (from what I have seen) in pigment-based printing. For particular images, this may or may not override the convenience of inkjet printing.

 

Whilst currently limited to the scanning option, I'm looking forward to returning to wet printing some time down the track.

[SilentShutter]

Analog, enlarger printing, will diminish resolution. If we print using an enlarger even with a high resolution lens, the outcome will always be less than the resolution of the negative. Physics

 

Absolutly correct ! I always had to laught about guys paying thousands for their camera gear and use a cheap lens for enlarging their pictures.

 

The advantage of "hybrid" workflow - means film/scan/inkjetprinter is the multiple ways of manipulation or correction you have with photoshop.

Nothing in the darkroom comes even close to that !

 

Why I still take pictures with old film cameras is just because I  love to use them.

If I would only go for the results and quality I stay digital !

[fsprow]

There is certainly a lot of material on the web on this matter, so I won't jump in to that:

 

My cameras are: Leica M3, M4 film and M240 digital.

                            Hasselblad SWC, 503CW film and H6D100c digital.

 

I have found that shooting film on and off makes all my photography better.  I can't tell you why, but that's the result!

[gsgary]

Look here it might change your mind http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[edwardkaraa]

I find film inferior to digital in every respect, except the fun factor. Digital is so perfect it becomes boring. I like the imperfections of film.