Return to film - or not

[EoinC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

I'm very happy with my current 'hybrid' flow, Peter:

B&W = self-developed and scanned

C41 = outsource developed (who scans by default) and later scanned by myself if I want

 

I currently am not in a position to do wet printing (time, space, portability, enthusiasm priorities), and have postponed a return to that for a few years (if ever).

 

I would suggest starting with outsourcing all, and then venture back into whatever part of the flow you want to. There is plenty of good advice on LUF about scanning options and associated issues / solutions, but you may also find that you are happy to outsource everything.

[Peter H]

Thanks Eoin

 

I think I'll be happy to outsource scanning since the object of that stage is to be as neutral as possible, i.e. faithful to the negative, and unless I believe I can do a better job than the professionals, which I seriously doubt, I can see no point in doing that bit myself.It ought to be a mechanical and non-creative process.

 

The question for me to consider is then, how best to process with a view to retaining as far as possible the qualities of the negative. That, aside from the taking of the photos, should be the fun, creative part.

 

But if scanning inevitably loses the essential qualities of the neg compared with a digital camera file, I start to wonder about using film in the first place, but again,  that's something I'll have to find out about and decide for myself.

[EoinC]

Thanks Eoin

 

I think I'll be happy to outsource scanning since the object of that stage is to be as neutral as possible, i.e. faithful to the negative, and unless I believe I can do a better job than the professionals, which I seriously doubt, I can see no point in doing that bit myself.It ought to be a mechanical and non-creative process.

 

The question for me to consider is then, how best to process with a view to retaining as far as possible the qualities of the negative. That, aside from the taking of the photos, should be the fun, creative part.

 

But if scanning inevitably loses the essential qualities of the neg compared with a digital camera file, I start to wonder about using film in the first place, but again,  that's something I'll have to find out about and decide for myself.

Hi, Peter. I think it's one of those organic 'things' that are difficult to describe. I enjoy both the making of the photograph, and the end result (be that as a digital image, or a print). Looking through the "I like film.." thread will give some idea of what those who are irretrievably infected see as being different. Is there something that intrigues you about those images (and their 'imperfections')?

 

I think it really is something that needs to be experienced to see whether it sparks some of those joys you may have forgotten from when film was the norm.

 

Like most drugs, it's not expensive to get started on, and there are willing users who will help you...

[mikemgb]

Thanks Eoin

 

I think I'll be happy to outsource scanning since the object of that stage is to be as neutral as possible, i.e. faithful to the negative, and unless I believe I can do a better job than the professionals, which I seriously doubt, I can see no point in doing that bit myself.It ought to be a mechanical and non-creative process.

 

The question for me to consider is then, how best to process with a view to retaining as far as possible the qualities of the negative. That, aside from the taking of the photos, should be the fun, creative part.

 

But if scanning inevitably loses the essential qualities of the neg compared with a digital camera file, I start to wonder about using film in the first place, but again,  that's something I'll have to find out about and decide for myself.

 

Scanning doesn't lose those qualities, in my opinion, take a look at my photos in the following link, that isn't a look you can get with digital:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/271030-soulard-market-st-louis-missouri/?do=findComment&comment=3252511

[Doc Henry]

Peter about the definition here a crop 100% of a digit image (M8) and M7

 

same lens , same time , same place of shooting.

 

Which image has a better definition ?  like windows sharper , stone ,roof

and building , trees etc.....

 

Mont Saint Michel Abbaye

 

M7-Ilford Delta100-Nikon Coolscan 5000

M8-same Isos

 

Image 1

 

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!

 

Image 2

 

 

The analog image is nicer in print with a Focomat enlarger !

 

Best

Henry

 

Mike please post your pictures in I like film thread. Pictures on  your link are fabulous

You are welcome .Thanks

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/page-1533?do=findComment&comment=3253709

[Peter H]

Peter about the definition here a crop 100% of a digit image (M8) and M7

 

same lens , same time , same place of shooting.

 

Which image has a better definition ?  like windows sharper , stone ,roof

and building , trees etc.....

 

Mont Saint Michel Abbaye

 

M7-Ilford Delta100-Nikon Coolscan 5000

M8-same Isos

 

Image 1

 

OKImage30mtstmichilforddelta100-crop (ht)-2 (photo1)-2.jpg

 

Image 2

 

OKL1013773stmichtluf-crop 300(photo2).jpg

 

The analog image is nicer in print with a Focomat enlarger !

 

Best

Henry

 

Mike please post your pictures in I like film thread. Pictures on  your link are fabulous

You are welcome .Thanks

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/page-1533?do=findComment&comment=3253709

 

 

 

Thanks Henry for showing these.

 

 

Is it right to compare a 35mm negative with an M8 file , since they are different sizes? Maybe it doesn't matter much. I think I can see what you mean anyway.

 

What I'd really like to see though is a comparison of a fully analogue print (quite difficult on a computer screen!) and one from the same negative that has been scanned and printed by different methods, both inkjet and maybe a C-type. I shall do it soon, but if anyone has any further thoughts they'd like to share it would be interesting.

 

 I am not going to reconstitute my old darkrooms, for several reasons, some purely practical. So my decision is simply this: is it worth going back to film in any serious way if the only way to get the best from it is a fully analogue work flow?

 

I admire and enjoy other people's beautiful film photography. I started to learn about photography in the 1960s, so film makes up by far the majority of my photographic experience, and I'd like to start using it again, but if I'm always going to be reminded each time I look at my own hybrid photos that they are not as good as they could be if only I'd go back to being fully analogue, I think I'd find it too frustrating.  

[EoinC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...I think I'd find it too frustrating.  

Hi, Peter.

Your 'online persona' comes across as possibly the most patient of LUF'ers. I suspect that is at least a partial reflection of your real persona (did you notice how well film handles reflections?).

 

Given the palpable sense of connection that was apparent in your relaying of the experience of your new / old acquisition, I don't think frustration will be a big part of your return to the future.

 

Go on...dip your toe in and feel how warm the water is.

[Peter H]

Hi, Peter.

Your 'online persona' comes across as possibly the most patient of LUF'ers. I suspect that is at least a partial reflection of your real persona (did you notice how well film handles reflections?).

 

Given the palpable sense of connection that was apparent in your relaying of the experience of your new / old acquisition, I don't think frustration will be a big part of your return to the future.

 

Go on...dip your toe in and feel how warm the water is.

 

 

 

Thank you. I fully intend to. I'm half way through exposing my first roll of film for about 14 years. 

 

But the thing that has stopped me for most of those years now is not knowing what to do with a roll of film once it's exposed.

 

I still feel that I don't know the answer.

[Doc Henry]

Thanks Henry for showing these.

 

 

Is it right to compare a 35mm negative with an M8 file , since they are different sizes? Maybe it doesn't matter much. I think I can see what you mean anyway.

 

What I'd really like to see though is a comparison of a fully analogue print (quite difficult on a computer screen!) and one from the same negative that has been scanned and printed by different methods, both inkjet and maybe a C-type. I shall do it soon, but if anyone has any further thoughts they'd like to share it would be interesting.

 

 I am not going to reconstitute my old darkrooms, for several reasons, some purely practical. So my decision is simply this: is it worth going back to film in any serious way if the only way to get the best from it is a fully analogue work flow?

 

I admire and enjoy other people's beautiful film photography. I started to learn about photography in the 1960s, so film makes up by far the majority of my photographic experience, and I'd like to start using it again, but if I'm always going to be reminded each time I look at my own hybrid photos that they are not as good as they could be if only I'd go back to being fully analogue, I think I'd find it too frustrating.  

 

Peter about your request for comparison between print and digital Chrism did it and posted in "I like film" thread

May be you have seen his result.The digital print is not satisfying !

I'll post for you the work of Chris if I find the posts (several posts)

Best

Henry

For your information I still have M8 and M9 . I keep them just for comparison when I photograph with film

That's my spirit of researcher who comes back  !

[Peter H]

Thank you Henry. Your dedication to the cause of film is wonderful to behold. I dip in and out of your film thread fairly regularly ( and always enjoy it) so I must have missed the posts you refer to. I'll look again but it's a big thread!

 

Do you you feel that there's no way of getting really satisfying prints from a roll of film aside from the traditional fully analogue path?

 

What do your think about C-type prints? Are they a poor substitute or an acceptable alternative? I find the idea of combining many of the benefits of film and digital ( as pointed out by Ian W) very appealing so I think I need to give it a try.

[wattsy]

Do you you feel that there's no way of getting really satisfying prints from a roll of film aside from the traditional fully analogue path?

 

 

Henry, may well feel that way but it is not a universally accepted truth. Irrespective of the merits of a "traditional fully analogue path", there is no question in my mind that there are substantial differences between a scanned negative or transparency and a digital image (I know they are both digital files but I think everyone understands the distinction). I also believe that those differences cannot be emulated using post-production techniques. Those Hollywood filmmakers who insist on using film do so knowing that the film will be scanned for post-production purposes before being either put back on film for projection or consumed 'digitally'. I don't think they would bother shooting on film if there weren't certain perceived advantages that carry through a hybrid workflow and I believe the same is true for still photography.

 

Incidentally, I'm not sure Henry is referring to digital C-types when he mentions "digital prints". In my experience, a properly prepared digital file (scanned film or digital original) looks beautiful when outputted as a C-type (as it can also as an inkjet print).

 

For many years, film was decried as a substandard medium for stuck-in-the-mud backward types or those unable to afford a digital camera that was deemed acceptable at a given time. For whatever reason (be it hipsters or whatever) it is now fully socially acceptable to be a film user but I also detect a new fundamentalism, a kind of reverse backlash that disdains all things digital. Both positions are boring and I regret that so often, even a simple request for information about using film, is met with advice that IMO unnecessary complicates matters.

[EoinC]

I agree with Ian. There is nothing wrong with a full digital workflow, or a full analogue, or whatever hybrid mix of the two. I am happy with my current mix, including inkjet printing of digital scanned files of film.

 

I have always loved photography, ever since my father introduced me to it as a young lad, but I don't think I've ever enjoyed and treasured it as much as I do now, and film, with scanned output, is a big part of that.

[mikemgb]

I print my scanned negatives on either a Canon Pro-10 photo printer or a Mimaki wide format. While ink jet prints do not have quite the same look as a wet print, by the time you put it behind glass you really can't tell much difference.

[leica dream]

Well, I have got my films back from processing and just had a quick browse of the CD versions - absolute rubbish quality. With Easter holidays I shall not get a chance to review actual negatives for a few days. Maybe it is the commercial scanning which some have warned about, or the processing, or maybe it is the ancient cameras. I shall feed back what I find after close examination and/or personal scanning. Just from the quick view, the little auto Olympus images are the better quality than the Braun Paxette rangefinder.  All this is good input to my research and ultimate decision about film.

By the way, I have be really interested to read what varied subjects this thread has generated. Clearly there is no "right" way here.

The point which KO.FE identified some entries back about there being two paths here (film and composition) is absolutely correct. In my mind, even if I decide on a film path alongside my digital I shall need to develop different techniques considering composition much more seriously to make images worthwhile for retention rather than what I sadly admit is little more than a "snap" approach which I have at the moment. ................It is all part of my big question....WHY.

Richard

[ianman]

You need just a dark cubicle, tent or even a changing bag for filling the film into the tank. 

Not anymore !

This looks even easier than a changing bag.

 

http://www.ars-imago.com/lab-box/

[EoinC]

.....It is all part of my big question....WHY.

Richard

It's all horses for courses, Richard. For me, I like both film and digital. I think that my work with digital has improved my film work, and my film work has improved my digital. Not being able to chimp (for me) forces me to think a little more about what I'm doing. Others may differ.

[pop]

Not anymore !

This looks even easier than a changing bag.

 

http://www.ars-imago.com/lab-box/

Indeed; I'm eagerly awaiting mine. 

[mikemgb]

Well, I have got my films back from processing and just had a quick browse of the CD versions - absolute rubbish quality. With Easter holidays I shall not get a chance to review actual negatives for a few days. Maybe it is the commercial scanning which some have warned about, or the processing, or maybe it is the ancient cameras. I shall feed back what I find after close examination and/or personal scanning. Just from the quick view, the little auto Olympus images are the better quality than the Braun Paxette rangefinder.  All this is good input to my research and ultimate decision about film.

By the way, I have be really interested to read what varied subjects this thread has generated. Clearly there is no "right" way here.

The point which KO.FE identified some entries back about there being two paths here (film and composition) is absolutely correct. In my mind, even if I decide on a film path alongside my digital I shall need to develop different techniques considering composition much more seriously to make images worthwhile for retention rather than what I sadly admit is little more than a "snap" approach which I have at the moment. ................It is all part of my big question....WHY.

Richard

 

I have found that colour processing is very hit and miss, I have two camera stores locally that process, one is better than the other but neither are particularly good, this is why I do my own, black and white and colour.

 

I also find shooting film again has improved my photography all round, unlike megapixels, film is not free and I try to make sure every shot is worth taking. I have found that mindset has transferred to digital, I take fewer photographs than I used to but I get far more keepers.

[105012]

Well, I have got my films back from processing and just had a quick browse of the CD versions - absolute rubbish quality. With Easter holidays I shall not get a chance to review actual negatives for a few days. Maybe it is the commercial scanning which some have warned about, or the processing, or maybe it is the ancient cameras. I shall feed back what I find after close examination and/or personal scanning. Just from the quick view, the little auto Olympus images are the better quality than the Braun Paxette rangefinder.  All this is good input to my research and ultimate decision about film.

By the way, I have be really interested to read what varied subjects this thread has generated. Clearly there is no "right" way here.

The point which KO.FE identified some entries back about there being two paths here (film and composition) is absolutely correct. In my mind, even if I decide on a film path alongside my digital I shall need to develop different techniques considering composition much more seriously to make images worthwhile for retention rather than what I sadly admit is little more than a "snap" approach which I have at the moment. ................It is all part of my big question....WHY.

Richard

 

Hi Richard

 

I found that the commercial labs I had access to would produce very variable results. Sometimes great, mostly mediocre and a few times terrible. In a bigger city, you will probably have more choice and able to find a more consistent service. However, processing C-41 is pretty straightforward if you follow the instructions exactly (no deviations) and can keep your temperatures precise during dev and blix phases.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[chrism]

Peter about your request for comparison between print and digital Chrism did it and posted in "I like film" thread

May be you have seen his result.The digital print is not satisfying !

I'll post for you the work of Chris if I find the posts (several posts)

Best

Henry

For your information I still have M8 and M9 . I keep them just for comparison when I photograph with film

That's my spirit of researcher who comes back  !

 

I might not be the best exemplar for that Henry, as it's been years since I last did wet printing and I was not particularly good at it then. But what I knew is coming back and I can take the time to study and experiment now. It's plain that this could become very absorbing as it's so satisfying when it all works!

 

For anyone with doubts: It's very, very easy to develop film! A tank, a changing bag, measuring cylinders ('graduates' in N. America) and a thermometer will be all you need to start. Pick a slower and a faster B&W film and always use the same recipes for them. Liquid concentrates make mixing easy, and a bottle of a Rodinal clone or HC-110 (or its clones) will last a long time. Later on you can widen your repertoire, but it's easiest and more efficient to restrict your film and chemistry choices until you feel competent. It won't take long before you approach each film with the expectation that, as we used to say, 'it will come out'. But you will know all that from having done it in the past.

 

Scanning isn't hard either, and you'll certainly get better results than are usually the case with uncaring non-specialist shops. An Epson flatbed is a useful thing to have, and even a cheap film scanner is effective - I used a Pacific Image for a while and was surprised at how well it did for something so cheap. You already know how much you can muck around with the image in LR or PS from digital camera files, but film scans aren't so robust and have to be manipulated gently (or you may feel its wrong to do digital manipulation on a film scan - I could understand that). It's a heck of a lot easier than doing it under an enlarger. I don't see why anyone should feel they aren't doing it properly if they scan and make inkjet prints (I'll probably be drummed out of APUG now!) - it's a perfectly valid way of working. Choosing to to learn wet printing isn't really practical as the only way of making a print unless you print very little, but then you won't get enough practice at it! For me it's simply a fascinating challenge and some unfinished business from the past that I am trying to master. I pick and choose a negative for this not so much because I need a print of it, but simply to go and get some practice and enjoy a few hours in the dark. It's really a different business altogether from the taking of photographs, and is not an obligatory part of returning to film!

 

The photo linked here was not taken with a Leica, so I won't post the image. This is a scan of the negative, and this is a scan of the silver print. As you can see, I'm no expert at printing, but perhaps I'll improve, and it pleases me in the meantime.

 

Chris