My (maybe brief?) return to film...need some help

[Mikep996]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yesterday I went out with my M6 and two rolls of HP5.  First time shooting film/using my M6 since 2001.  I won't go into any details other than to say I enjoyed the shooting far more than I do with digital.  Everything about the process was more satisfying and fun...up until I had two strips of film hanging to dry.  🤔

It then occurred to me...what now?  If I scan the film then haven't I just made film into a far more difficult way to produce a digital image?  It's much easier to use a digital camera to do that and the "conversion" process alters the image.  IOW, without a darkroom (which I do NOT want to get back into) it seems to me that the hybrid method - shooting film, scanning it, printing it - produces something that is inferior to either all digital OR all analog.  If I just want images for computer/web/sharing, it seems to me to make even less sense to use film.  

 I know many folks here shoot film and then digitize it, without concern about the issues that I'm worrying about.  I bought a Plustek scanner as part of my "return to film" but I'm currently thinking of just returning it unused/unopened.  Some guidance/suggestions would be appreciated because I really liked using my M6/film but I really don't like the idea of making/gearing-up another darkroom.  😱

[Huss]

When I scan film with my digital camera I do so in Raw.  So there are no profiles added to the image.  It is just a copy of the image. If you look at digitized film images you will see that they look like film images.  Not digital images unless the operator deliberately processed them in ways that a film image would not ne able to render unassisted.

Think about all the ways film images were modified in the past.  Choice of developers. Temperatures used.  Paper types and grades used.  The type of lens in the enlarger.

Return that scanner. Scan w a digicam in RAW.  Convert w negativelabpro.com

[madNbad]

If you capture the negatives as RAW file, there is a tremendous amount of information to work with. Just like printing or transferring digital files, it all depends on how much effort you want to expend on any given image. I’m perfectly happy with dialing the EV to a point where it looks good to me but that’s my process.  I had a Plustek 7600i that I bought for a hundred usd and used for a few years before moving to camera scanning. Silverfast offers a “Pilot” mode that automates many of the adjustments and speeds up the process. Don’t over think it, just enjoy yourself.

[frame-it]

 

[jakontil]

It is the process when taking photos with films just like no other.. winding and shoot it, oh wait… reloading it first 

dont worry about scanning it.. it is just an inferior frictions you are having a time of your life!

[madNbad]

As an addendum, keep your Plustek and use it. It’s not the fastest way to digitize film but it is a good way to learn the process. You have the scanner, if you stay with B&W then all you need is a changing bag, a developing tank and some chemistry. It’s easy enough to pop in a card, blast through a hundred exposures, import them then choose a few. It’s  a lot more satisfying to work with a finite number of exposures then develop them yourself.

[Darrell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Shooting on film can be all about getting back to analog and chemicals and darkrooms. Or it can be about getting an organic character to your images not possible with a purely digital workflow.

A modern lens on a digital camera gives us a near perfect image devoid of any serious imperfections or distracting character. It is a perfect reproduction of the scene in front of the camera.

Capturing the scene onto film instead of a digital sensor, we are giving up that perfect reproduction and introducing character. Scanning the film is just capturing the image produced on the film. It is still the analog reaction of the film’s emulsion that we are digitally capturing.

 

[250swb]

If you can't see enough of a difference between a film image and a digital image I agree, sell your Plustek and don't bother with film. If you can see the difference and like what you see it's worth the initial struggle.

But if it's simply a crisis about 'process' there has always been some other process after the negative, unless you are shooting slide film. And whether it's in the darkroom or with Photoshop the only arbiter of truth to materials or artistic vision is the photographer. It's not a new conundrum for the digital age, photographers have always taken the negative and manipulated it in some way or other. In simple terms Bresson manipulated the negative by choice of developer and print contrast, in complicated terms Jerry Uelsmann made surreal prints from negatives that today people mistake for digital creations.

I think the best solution nowadays is to simply photograph the negative with a high resolution digital camera and you get an authentic copy largely free of software altering the films characteristics. It gives a good starting point to make all the decisions in Photoshop or Lightroom that you would have made anyway in the darkroom. So you can do dodging and burning, choose the contrast, the tone, etc. If you don't have a digital camera to copy the negative use your Plustek scanner, but it is a learning curve especially if you don't want to negative to look digitised with 'Auto this' and 'Auto that'. But either way I wouldn't worry about the exact nature of the next stage, whether its a scanner or a digital camera, you've already interfered with the world by framing the image with a camera, what comes next is just about sharing what you saw in your minds eye.

Edited October 26, 2022 by 250swb

[LocalHero1953]

Digital cameras and negative film respond to light differently and make quite different images. Negative film shows far more tonal gradation in highlights and far less in shadows. Skies render better, shadows less so - but in most scenes the highlights are what you want to look at, not the shadows. More generally the tonal response curve of film stock is different from that of a digital sensor. And, especially noticeable in B&W, film is more sensitive at the blue end of the spectrum, digital to the red end - not enough in either case to make the images unrealistic, but noticeable.

If you start to look for differences, then I think you will find them. Then you can start to think about subjects, lighting and feelings for when you might choose a film camera over a digital camera, or the other way round.

[jukka]

1 hour ago, Mikep996 said:

I enjoyed the shooting far more than I do with digital.  Everything about the process was more satisfying and fun

For me, at least, that is the point.

1 hour ago, Mikep996 said:

up until I had two strips of film hanging to dry.  🤔

In my workflow I have my negatives developed in a lab. Using a Plustek, I then scan the most promising ones – about two per roll – before archiving them.

The benefit is that I have a concrete archive of past work going back ten plus years. I regularly reedit these, whether with a new scanner, new editing software, or just by printing. I don't think I could have maintained a similar digital archive over the years (and I haven't).

1 hour ago, Mikep996 said:

shooting film, scanning it, printing it - produces something that is inferior to either all digital OR all analog.

I tend to think that the risk with digital is that you get caught in pixel peeping. With analogue, the risk is that it gives you an excuse to be pleased with boring shots. No matter the medium, however, an interesting shot is interesting and vice versa. That said, and as pointed out already above, the hybrid method does produce lovely results, better than all digital in my view, if done right. You constantly see this in reputable museums and galleries as well.

Edited October 26, 2022 by jukka

[pippy]

3 hours ago, Mikep996 said:

Yesterday I went out with my M6......I won't go into any details other than to say I enjoyed the shooting far more than I do with digital.  Everything about the process was more satisfying and fun...

I know you wrote that you wouldn't go into details but I will ask you if you would care to do so. What, specifically, did you find to be more enjoyable about the shooting experience? I ask because IMX whether I'm using either my M2 or my M-D 262 the shooting experience is exactly the same apart from, with the digi-cam, not having to wind the film on or rewind it at the end of the roll(*).

Philip.

* EDIT : Additionally, of course, the M2 doesn't have TTL metering but that isn't the situation with the M6.

Edited October 26, 2022 by pippy

[Mikep996]

Phillip,  I wish I could give you a logical, sensible reason...

But I think it was the physical feel/use of the camera - the film advance, the physical setting of the shutter speed/fixed Fstop and the fact that since I couldn't review pics, I felt more "tuned into" taking photographs rather than checking pics.  I realize I could do exactly the same with my M10R by simply turning off the "review" so the screen remains blank, selecting a hard ISO, and never putting the shutter in the "auto" mode.  But I don't.  I've tried that but always find that I end up chimping, and taking 10x the number of pics needed!   

In any case,  I shot far fewer pics of the same subject than I would have with digital and paid more attention to what I was doing.  AGAIN, I realize that I could do the exact same thing with digital - just slow down, think more!  Why take 10 pics when one or two well-thought out pics is far better and less to review?  So certainly, anyone could (correctly) say that my film/digital viewpoint is more about discipline than it is about the cameras.

MAYBE there is big "nostalgia" thing involved as well.  Having the M6 in hand just felt familiar and comfortable.  I'm not saying that my M10R is unfamiliar or uncomfortable to use or anything like that.  It was totally a mental "warm feeling."  Hmmm...maybe I should be on a psychiatric forum instead of a camera forum! 🙄

 

As an aside, I went ahead and got the Plustek scanner working.   It was a total PITA to go through the Plustek/Silverfast  registration/activation process.  It's the worst product activation scheme I have yet run across but it's working now and I'll go through the negatives later today.  I'll be comparing them with M10R pics of the same subjects (converted to B&W) taken over the past few months.  Same 50mm Summicron on both cameras.

 

[Archiver]

4 hours ago, jukka said:

For me, at least, that is the point.

In my workflow I have my negatives developed in a lab. Using a Plustek, I then scan the most promising ones – about two per roll – before archiving them.

The benefit is that I have a concrete archive of past work going back ten plus years. I regularly reedit these, whether with a new scanner, new editing software, or just by printing. I don't think I could have maintained a similar digital archive over the years (and I haven't).

Through regular upgrading and migration to new hard drives, I am about to hit twenty years of digital photography archives. I started shooting digital in 2002 and kept everything, which probably amounts to hundreds of thousands of images. Processed jpegs are kept in separate hard drives from raw files, too. I also have all the film photos taken over the course of my life, thanks to prints, negs and lab scans.

[TomB_tx]

I shot film with Leica M (and SLRs) for over 40 years before trying digital, and only began to like digital when I got an M9. Finally a digital I could use just like my film Ms. But you are right: something about the tactile operation of a film camera - loading, winding, rationing the roll over its use, and the satisfaction of unloading and saving a roll where you know you got the shots you wanted - is missing even though I still shoot digital as if it were a film camera.

Then getting back to the darkroom, loading the Nikor reels and tank, and processing the film, checking the negatives while they hang to dry and anticipating how they will do - that's a big part of the enjoyment of photography for me. I admit, I enjoy the process quite apart from results.

I usually shoot 20-24 exposure rolls, and can load a full roll on my Epson V850 and scan the batch with one click, then review results and decide whether to use the scans or fire up the enlarger to wet print a few. I don't print much anymore, as I find the scans still have the character of film, and are easier to share.

Film makes me feel young(er) again.

[spydrxx]

IMHO it is about what you enjoy. Some enjoy darkroom tasks, others like to pixel peep. Personally, I switch between film and digital because I enjoy using the cameras I've acquired over the years, and recognize that either can do the job.

[Mikep996]

I agree!  As part of my evaluation today, carrying my M6 (Ilford HP5) and M10R, I set the 10R to ISO 400, took the shutter dial off auto and turned off the review, vowing to leave it that way for my outing.  It was a bit amusing because when I was using the 10R, I had so quickly and comfortably gotten into the M6 mode that I found myself trying to move the (non-existent) film advance lever after every shutter release!

 

 

 

 

[madNbad]

5 hours ago, Mikep996 said:

Phillip,  I wish I could give you a logical, sensible reason...

But I think it was the physical feel/use of the camera - the film advance, the physical setting of the shutter speed/fixed Fstop and the fact that since I couldn't review pics, I felt more "tuned into" taking photographs rather than checking pics.  I realize I could do exactly the same with my M10R by simply turning off the "review" so the screen remains blank, selecting a hard ISO, and never putting the shutter in the "auto" mode.  But I don't.  I've tried that but always find that I end up chimping, and taking 10x the number of pics needed!   

In any case,  I shot far fewer pics of the same subject than I would have with digital and paid more attention to what I was doing.  AGAIN, I realize that I could do the exact same thing with digital - just slow down, think more!  Why take 10 pics when one or two well-thought out pics is far better and less to review?  So certainly, anyone could (correctly) say that my film/digital viewpoint is more about discipline than it is about the cameras.

MAYBE there is big "nostalgia" thing involved as well.  Having the M6 in hand just felt familiar and comfortable.  I'm not saying that my M10R is unfamiliar or uncomfortable to use or anything like that.  It was totally a mental "warm feeling."  Hmmm...maybe I should be on a psychiatric forum instead of a camera forum! 🙄

 

As an aside, I went ahead and got the Plustek scanner working.   It was a total PITA to go through the Plustek/Silverfast  registration/activation process.  It's the worst product activation scheme I have yet run across but it's working now and I'll go through the negatives later today.  I'll be comparing them with M10R pics of the same subjects (converted to B&W) taken over the past few months.  Same 50mm Summicron on both cameras.

 

If you do find the whole "returning to film" a bigger effort and more frustrating than envisioned, at least it's made you slow down a bit and be more contemplative.

[pippy]

3 hours ago, Mikep996 said:

As part of my evaluation today......I set the 10R to ISO 400, took the shutter dial off auto and turned off the review, vowing to leave it that way for my outing.  It was a bit amusing because when I was using the 10R, I had so quickly and comfortably gotten into the M6 mode that I found myself trying to move the (non-existent) film advance lever after every shutter release!

When I started to shoot with a digi-M (after 35 years of using an M2) I, too, kept on trying to wind-on after each shot. As I had my M8.2 set to Discreet Advance it would only 'wind-on' when I took my finger off the shutter so we were both 'winding-on' at the same time. Funny!

As far as the other bit goes; my background was always with fully-manual cameras(*) so using a camera fully-manual is simply what I like to do. With the M8 and the M9 cameras I did use the screen to confirm exposure on the odd occasion when the lighting situation was a bit tricky but once I got the M-D 262 it was exactly like using my M2 once more but with TTL metering; i.e. like using an M6. The odd thing is that having become accustomed (again) to not being able to review images when I use the Monochrom I found that I also use that camera with the same mindset and don't look at the screen.

What this means in practice is I adopt the very same approach when shooting digital as yourself when shooting film as you described in post #13;

"...I shot far fewer pics of the same subject...and paid more attention to what I was doing......just slow down, think more!  Why take 10 pics when one or two well-thought out pics is far better and less to review?..."

I've said it before but this, for me, is the whole point of the M-D; in use the photographer needs to think carefully about everything before tripping the shutter. Once it's captured simply move on and think about finding the next image rather than reviewing what has already been captured. It really is like shooting with a film camera but with a digital post-prod. workflow.

It sounds to me as if you need to buy yourself an M-D 262...

Philip.

* Until 2007/08 when I bought my first DSLR.

Edited October 26, 2022 by pippy

[Stevejack]

I agree with lots of the other replies - it's more about the process than the end result.   Going back to film for me was about moving away from electronics. For a long while now I've felt like I was shooting with a computer rather than a machine. Autofocus, eye-autofocus, auto-ISO, shooting a dozen almost identical images of a scene instead of really taking the time to think about it first...

Moving to a digital Leica was great, I much prefer it to using my Sony camera. It was more tactile and mechanical.

But I couldn't escape the electronics.... menus, batteries, temptations to use an EVF...

So I went film to escape all that. But I wasn't using my M3 much, I was pulling it out only on occasion and still using my digital 90% of the time. 

So now I take my film camera everywhere, and only bring the digital with me when I have a specific need for it. I take maybe two or three film shots a day if the mood strikes me. And I'm enjoying it much more. I think about light more. I think about composition more. This all makes me a better photographer. 

The developing / scanning side is a pain, but that has its own charm. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[JoshuaR]

I shoot with an M10 and M4-P and really enjoy the combination of film and digital M.

At first, I wrestled a lot with which camera to take out when, and was a little stymied by the question of what the point of it all might be. I even thought that I should throw in fully one way or the other, going all-digital or all-film, rather than have a doubled-up process. I went all-film for a while and certainly enjoyed it.

After a while, though, I figured out that there were different occasions and different styles of photography that I was able to accomplish in the different media. I make certain kinds of pictures with digital and others with film. I think of film as adding to, rather than replacing, my digital photography.

One reason to shoot film, for me, is that it really diversifies what I can do. With digital, all my pictures look similar. With film, there are so many alternative looks. This became especially true after I started using 120 again, in addition to 35mm. Digital photography widens the shooting envelope, with, for example, low-light shooting. But film photography widens the aesthetic envelope, because you can use so many different film stocks (and also camera types).

There are circumstances in which I really value the ability to take unlimited photos very quickly, and to produce "perfect" pictures full of high-res detail. I often shoot digital at big social events, for instance, or when I'm making certain kinds of landscape pictures. There are others times when I value the slower pace, or the more impressionistic look of 35mm, or the more authentic—as I perceive it—capture of whatever happened to be in front of the lens when I tripped the shutter on film. I notice, for example, that, in my digital portraits people always have "perfect" expressions, because I cull out the weird ones. But on film, I keep them, because they're all I have, and down the road I sometimes prefer the strangeness or unpredictability of the film shot.

I also like the mechanical feel of the film cameras, and the rituals of bulk rolling, developing, and printing. 

So my advice is to not overthink it, to follow your intuition, to do what you enjoy, and to let the differences in your approaches develop slowly and on their own.