Return to film - or not

[Doc Henry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When you scan film you're making a digital copy of the film negative. The output (however presented) is always different to an image captured digitally. 

 

It's better you keep analog chain processing,  in printing with an enlarger on silver paper

after development of your film.

Scan is for posting on the web !

Henry

[Advertisement]

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

[earleygallery]

It's better you keep analog chain processing,  in printing with an enlarger on silver paper

after development of your film.

Scan is for posting on the web !

Henry

 

Not necessarily better, but different. 

[leica dream]

I had not intended developing this topic further following my last post, but I have just watched Henry's video (above). In truth, I think I am still teetering on the edge.

I did undertake my experiments with the old cameras as mentioned and the results are now out for processing at a specialist lab which I have used previously for transparencies. I shall receive back negatives and CDs. The two 36 exp films cost just under £20 for that service, which is also relevant, so makes DIY more attractive. I shot the same scenes with both cameras so I could compare results.

After a few years of digital the thing I really missed was the ability to change focal length for each shot - just accepting what the fixed length lens provided. I guess that is something I could revert to without too much difficulty. Yes, it was nice to have the rangefinder on one camera, but without an exposure meter capability all settings on that camera were guesswork and the viewfinder was extremely misty, whereas the little Olympus was automatic for everything.

Then, a few days ago I saw on this forum an M6 for sale....affordable, and I wavered again, although no lens included. I think 35mm lens would be my choice.

My trial results will be back in a few days so I shall have a chance to assess the whole process and might feed back more then.

Whatever the results, I do admit that my biggest overriding problem (analogue or digital) is composition - I am totally rubbish about creating attractive images so that is something else to research and improve.

So, at this point I still ask "WHY", but I am not beyond persuasion...................and you guys are good at that!

[EoinC]

Keep drifting over to the "I like film..." thread to push yourself over the limit. Composition is overrated - Enjoyment is the key property to nail.

[earleygallery]

Composition can be conventional or unconventional. There are rules to follow and rules to be ignored. 

 

Just google 'rule of thirds' for some pointers on convention. 

 

As for your experiment with film you shouldn't throw in the towel so soon, especially if you're working with basic old cameras of dubious functionality. 

[Martin B]

It's better you keep analog chain processing,  in printing with an enlarger on silver paper

after development of your film.

Scan is for posting on the web !

Henry

 

I agree. Regarding film, I am scanning the negatives to save a digital copy just in case, to post in low resolution on the web, and to see if the negative came out okay - the latter one especially necessary to determine which one I make silver gelatin prints of if I shot similar frames. 

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Composition can be conventional or unconventional. There are rules to follow and rules to be ignored. 

 

Just google 'rule of thirds' for some pointers on convention. 

 

The rule of thirds is interesting, but bound to a cultural  preference. No?

One of my photos (I think) violates the rules but is popular, or was, for a long time.

 

Sorry for the low-rez. I do have the larger in print. I do not scan negs.

 

http://www.digoliardi.net/becky1.jpg

[leica dream]

I suppose the first hurdle I must overcome with composition is to clear the mental block that I need to get out there and take photographs for photographs sake not just recording items which are important to me or the family.

[SilentShutter]

Go and see

 

and when you find something interresting

take a picture and keep it

[LeicaBraz]

dont  it is useless   

[Martin B]

dont  it is useless   

 

You must have done something wrong by saying this, or you don't make use of the benefits film actually has. Nothing is "useless" in photography - just not fitting to personal preference is another thing.

[Ko.Fe.]

As I checked this thread for updates it seems to be divided. Possible huge spending on M6 and matching lens, with unknown possibility of self processing. At one side.

At another side some difficulties with composition as something more important than recording important things.

 

I'm lost in trying to find the relevance. Taking important pictures to me is divided. Family important pictures are better taken digitally. IMO. Our film family pictures color negatives from time it was no digital, are not in good shape. I have to digitize it before it was getting worst. Did it with different scanners and results are still so-so. Honestly, it was liberating after we dropped in-lab film processing and started to take it digitally.

 

Now, pictures which are important as something I'm trying to achieve. Somehow it is almost 100% on film.

 

And finally, OP concern with composition. If it is family things, get it in focus, closer to the middle and well exposed. This is it. It will hold its value as long as you or anyone else is willing to look at it.

Also, somehow, my advanced composition skills sucks with digital. I'll take dozens of pictures and still it doesn't feel right. But if I'm taking it on film, don't know why, it works within first frame.

No kidding! )

[pico]

I suppose the first hurdle I must overcome with composition is to clear the mental block that I need to get out there and take photographs for photographs sake not just recording items which are important to me or the family.

 

Do a little examination of motive. What do you hope to achieve by making photos? Do you wish to impress strangers? Perhaps you are happy serving family with photos. Either is perfectly good. Above all, enjoy!

[Peter H]

Not necessarily better, but different. 

 

 

 

I'm pleased you said this James. Thank you.

 

As I'm just returning to film (alongside digital, which has its own beauty), the idea that scanning is an inferior method of reproduction and that I really ought to reconstitute my entire darkroom would be enough to make me ditch the whole project before it's even started.

[earleygallery]

I'm pleased you said this James. Thank you.

 

As I'm just returning to film (alongside digital, which has its own beauty), the idea that scanning is an inferior method of reproduction and that I really ought to reconstitute my entire darkroom would be enough to make me ditch the whole project before it's even started.

 

Indeed Peter.

 

If you scan and print you end up with a digital print from the negative. You still benefit from the qualities of the film used - the grain, colour, contrast etc. If you make a wet print from a digital file you end up with a traditional photographic print from a digital source (sorry for stating the obvious).

 

I used to set up a full darkroom at weekends in a spare room (when I was in my teens, blimey!). I could never get really nice B&W prints consistently and eventually had to pack it in when I moved. I'm not in any rush to start wet printing again, although it would be fun to try, but I'm happy processing my film and printing digitally.

 

I can always get a wet print made by a lab if I want, but then I'd lose the control I have over the image by PP in photoshop and might not be so happy with the end result.

 

Thinking about it now whilst writing this, I'd be interested to try a wet print from a PP'd neg scan!

[Doc Henry]

As I said above that's my usual analog process and the result

 

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!

 

 

after I put a large frame and hanged on a wall .

The grain remains the grain . It's not inkjet  print !

 

Best

Henry

[Doc Henry]

and my enlarger

 

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!

 

Rg

Henry

[wattsy]

Thinking about it now whilst writing this, I'd be interested to try a wet print from a PP'd neg scan!

 

 

That's easy enough, James. There are still plenty of labs – Genesis, Metro, IlfordLab – that will produce a digital c-type at very modest cost. Personally, I think a digital c-type is the best of all worlds – you get to do all your retouching on the computer but still have a nice traditional print at the end. As an added bonus, you also have the original negative if you later decided you want to use an all-analogue workflow.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Martin B]

Indeed Peter.

 

If you scan and print you end up with a digital print from the negative. You still benefit from the qualities of the film used - the grain, colour, contrast etc. If you make a wet print from a digital file you end up with a traditional photographic print from a digital source (sorry for stating the obvious).

 

I used to set up a full darkroom at weekends in a spare room (when I was in my teens, blimey!). I could never get really nice B&W prints consistently and eventually had to pack it in when I moved. I'm not in any rush to start wet printing again, although it would be fun to try, but I'm happy processing my film and printing digitally.

 

I can always get a wet print made by a lab if I want, but then I'd lose the control I have over the image by PP in photoshop and might not be so happy with the end result.

 

Thinking about it now whilst writing this, I'd be interested to try a wet print from a PP'd neg scan!

 

Two points to add here: I do the process to make a wet print from digital files - it is called the digital negative. Tricky part here is to calibrate the silver gelatin paper and the developer chemistry with the inkjet printer output where the digital negative is coming from. Took me a few weeks to get this right - but then it works great with excellent results!

 

I would not recommend doing a wet print from a PP'd negative scan - by scanning the negative, the amount of grain becomes more visible in the digitized file. Easiest is to do a wet print directly from the negative - assuming your negative has a good enough quality itself.

[Peter H]

That's easy enough, James. There are still plenty of labs – Genesis, Metro, IlfordLab – that will produce a digital c-type at very modest cost. Personally, I think a digital c-type is the best of all worlds – you get to do all your retouching on the computer but still have a nice traditional print at the end. As an added bonus, you also have the original negative if you later decided you want to use an all-analogue workflow.

 

 

 

I'll never return to a completely analogue workflow, but the c-type print might interest me if it is appreciably nicer than ink-jet printing from scanned negatives.

 

Have you done comparisons? Can you (or anyone) say anything about how they look compared with each other?

 

I shall probably try it for myself before long but there are so many variables at work for me at the moment that a more experienced opinion would be appreciated.