reddot925 Posted September 22, 2017 Share #1 Posted September 22, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello all, I love the film look and also the beautiful M3 and M6. I only currently use M10 and MM. Now I'm seriously thinking about the M6 but my question is if I don't care for prints but love the film look, does it make sense to develop the negatives into files and straight to computer? Am I just missing the whole point of film, is it to just to get prints from the negatives like the old days? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 Hi reddot925, Take a look here Is film only for prints? Thinking of M6 Black paint. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mikemgb Posted September 22, 2017 Share #2 Posted September 22, 2017 My film workflow is based around scanning the negatives, there are many people who do the same thing, nothing says you have to print from a negative. 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug A Posted September 22, 2017 Share #3 Posted September 22, 2017 Film is much more versatile than digital. You can make slides. You can make analog prints. Or you can scan the negatives and view the images on a computer, tablet or phone or make digital prints. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted September 22, 2017 Share #4 Posted September 22, 2017 When you scan film you're also scanning the characteristics of the film. The grain and tones/colours. So my answer is NO - film is not only for prints (or slides). 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 22, 2017 Share #5 Posted September 22, 2017 (edited) I'm an old film person. One observation. For 35mm film, I enlarged B&W using a top quality Leitz condenser enlarger and excellent Nikon lens and the best grain focusing device to ~5x to ~10x enlargements. At my day job I had use of a high quality film scanner so I scanned a negative I had printed. Surprise - the output from the scanned negative was so much sharper than the original enlarger print that I did not like the sharper outcome. How can this be? Well, optical enlargement loses sharpness even with the best enlarger and best lens. So you decide. It's all about choice. An aside, please: as I mentioned in a recent post - we are highly unlikely to get the so-called Leica Glow of early film using digital sensors. The glow does exist. It largely attributed to the film used. I can explain further. Edited September 22, 2017 by pico 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
avatar230 Posted September 22, 2017 Share #6 Posted September 22, 2017 Another vote for a hybrid workflow. (Though I used to make silver gelatin prints from an enlarger). I've mostly retired my M 262 and have returned to film, now using an M-A and M4, combo Tri-X and Portra, scanned and printed as pigment inkjets. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ko.Fe. Posted September 22, 2017 Share #7 Posted September 22, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) M-E and couple of film M user here. Film look is modern term. It came strictly from those who scans and process negatives digitally. Here is absolutely nothing wrong with it. It is fun at its own, because scanner pickups all of the grain. So, film look folks are mostly those who talks about difference in film emulsions. And scanned film will always looks different from digitally taken images. Color and BW. Always. Now, have you been in galleries, museums? Do you have HCB, GW, Evans, Karsh, Bown or Arbus books? I have been and I have. I like the look and feel of the media. What is this media? ... Darkroom prints and scans, reproductions for the prints. Now you know why I like print more than scan. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentShutter Posted September 22, 2017 Share #8 Posted September 22, 2017 My film workflow is based around scanning the negatives, there are many people who do the same thing, nothing says you have to print from a negative. I walk both roads. Digital and Film. Just one is in common. Always make a print of a good picture ! 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted September 22, 2017 Share #9 Posted September 22, 2017 ... does it make sense to develop the negatives into files and straight to computer? No, not really. To get the most out of (colour or black&white negative) film, you need to make prints in the wet darkroom. Scanning and then going from there is just for displaying a glimpse of your work on the Internet ... but that's second-level utilisation of the negatives. Silver-gelatine prints are the real thing. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ricoh Posted September 22, 2017 Share #10 Posted September 22, 2017 (edited) Hello all, ...does it make sense to develop the negatives into files and straight to computer? A good question, and I suspect the topic could be broadened to consider the type of scanner to be employed. For instance a dedicated scanner with grey scale and colour capabilities selected appropriately to the film type, or a 'camera-scan' equipped with a bayer filter. When I BEOON scan using my M240, the B&W film files have weird colours that have to be desaturated. It seems totally wrong to use a bayer equiped camera to scan B&W, but it works, although the resulting images look somewhat digital, the digital camera has imposed some of its digital signature. Edited September 22, 2017 by Steve Ricoh Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted September 22, 2017 Share #11 Posted September 22, 2017 Film is very versatile - many different competent workflows. But a print (ideally mounted, matted and framed on a wall) is the holy grail. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest )-( Posted September 22, 2017 Share #12 Posted September 22, 2017 If you do scan rather than print, there's nothing to stop you returning to print your negatives in the future if you should have a change of heart, so the best of both worlds. And with colour negative, I think exposing for the shadows and the aesthetic of how highlights are resolved is infinitely more pleasing than digital, even if the delivery method is still digital. YMMV. Film is whatever you want it to be but I agree that a print is still the 'best' outcome. And of course good light is still good light and a good picture still a good picture, however you got 'there'. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted September 23, 2017 Share #13 Posted September 23, 2017 Film is much more versatile than digital. You can make slides. You can make analog prints. Or you can scan the negatives and view the images on a computer, tablet or phone or make digital prints. There are also processes to convert digital files to a wet print. Hybrid goes both ways. Jeff 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted September 23, 2017 Share #14 Posted September 23, 2017 There are also processes to convert digital files to a wet print. Hybrid goes both ways. Jeff http://de-vere.com/products-504ds-digital-enlarger/ Indeed. I have a number of beautiful silver-gelatin B&W prints from digital files framed and hanging on my walls. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mute-on Posted September 23, 2017 Share #15 Posted September 23, 2017 If you want to shoot film because you love the film look, then just shoot film! Print it wet, scan and print, scan only, it doesn't make any difference to anyone else. If you want to, do it. FYI the M6 did not come in black paint (per your title). There are multiple threads on choosing a film M for reference. Enjoy your journey Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted September 23, 2017 Share #16 Posted September 23, 2017 (edited) FYI the M6 did not come in black paint (per your title). There are multiple threads on choosing a film M for reference. Enjoy your journey I hate to be a pedant but it did: https://www.cameraquest.com/lm6lhsa.htm https://www.cameraquest.com/m62000.htm https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Leica/Leica-M6/M6TTL-Dragon2000/index.htm http://www.japancamerahunter.com/2012/12/leica-m6-ttl-millennium-nsh-special-edition-review-by-ebb-bayarsaikhan/ Edited September 23, 2017 by chris_livsey Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mute-on Posted September 23, 2017 Share #17 Posted September 23, 2017 (edited) I hate to be a pedant but it did: https://www.cameraquest.com/lm6lhsa.htm https://www.cameraquest.com/m62000.htm https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Leica/Leica-M6/M6TTL-Dragon2000/index.htm http://www.japancamerahunter.com/2012/12/leica-m6-ttl-millennium-nsh-special-edition-review-by-ebb-bayarsaikhan/ That's an M6 TTL. An M6 is the term usually reserved for the non-TTL, earlier version Edited September 23, 2017 by Mute-on Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arno_nyhm Posted September 23, 2017 Share #18 Posted September 23, 2017 I only currently use M10 and MM. Now I'm seriously thinking about the M6 but my question is if I don't care for prints but love the film look, does it make sense to develop the negatives into files and straight to computer? in a rational way it does not male sense at all. M10 and MM should give you the best color or BW-data for procession of a good picture available. no M6 needed for that. is it fun? heck yes! go ahead, get an M6 or just go the complete way to an M2, M3 oder M-A and have fun with it. you won't be disapointed. but don't expect your pictures to become any better from this. that won't happen! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Bachmann Posted September 23, 2017 Share #19 Posted September 23, 2017 An aside, please: as I mentioned in a recent post - we are highly unlikely to get the so-called Leica Glow of early film using digital sensors. The glow does exist. It largely attributed to the film used. I can explain further. Hi John, can you refer me to the recent post? I'd love to read this as most of the glow talk is about lenses. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ricoh Posted September 23, 2017 Share #20 Posted September 23, 2017 Is the glow attributed to the anti-halation backing being imperfect? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.