haris Posted October 17, 2007 Share #21 Posted October 17, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am film photographer. And I will say next: For me there is no point to shoot film and scan it. If you want to use film, make whole process, that is: shoot film, process it, use enlarger and silver photographic paper and process paper. If you shoot film and scan it, it is better to sell your film camera and scanner and buy and use digital imaging tool (digital camera) from start. Only making silver print from film give full analoug experience and "real look". Of course, if you use slide, than projecting with slide projector or making ilfochome print. There is no point to convert film to digital by scanning when you can have digital image from the start, that is from camera directly. Regards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 17, 2007 Posted October 17, 2007 Hi haris, Take a look here why film feels better??. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Joop van Heijgen Posted October 17, 2007 Share #22 Posted October 17, 2007 I am film photographer. And I will say next: For me there is no point to shoot film and scan it. If you want to use film, make whole process, that is: shoot film, process it, use enlarger and silver photographic paper and process paper. If you shoot film and scan it, it is better to sell your film camera and scanner and buy and use digital imaging tool (digital camera) from start. Only making silver print from film give full analoug experience and "real look". Of course, if you use slide, than projecting with slide projector or making ilfochome print. There is no point to convert film to digital by scanning when you can have digital image from the start, that is from camera directly. Regards. Indeed; the best ways are the separate ways: digital or analog. The only reason to scan a slide or photo is to bring it at the computer screen! But this gives a wrong impression of the quality of the slide or photo! But regularly scanned photos and slides seems to have a better quality than digital photos.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchokkerJJ Posted October 17, 2007 Share #23 Posted October 17, 2007 I feel exactly the same way. Scanning takes just so much time and if you compare a scanned print or a print from your darkroom, the difference is huge. Of course your work in the darkroom takes time...but at least you end up with some prints. For webviewing you only need a misarable 72dpi so what I do now is putting my darkroom prints on my flatbed scanner if I want to share my images on the web: example..this takes 2 seconds to scan on a fb Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joop van Heijgen Posted October 17, 2007 Share #24 Posted October 17, 2007 I feel exactly the same way. Scanning takes just so much time and if you compare a scanned print or a print from your darkroom, the difference is huge. Of course your work in the darkroom takes time...but at least you end up with some prints. For webviewing you only need a misarable 72dpi so what I do now is putting my darkroom prints on my flatbed scanner if I want to share my images on the web: example..this takes 2 seconds to scan on a fb You can see it on screen: this is a good photo in 'reality'! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted October 17, 2007 Share #25 Posted October 17, 2007 oh ....... darkroom....... that old type junk ...... anyway...... here are a few snaps from darkroom when i happen to pass by :-) . . . 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/35644-why-film-feels-better/?do=findComment&comment=379290'>More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 17, 2007 Share #26 Posted October 17, 2007 The only reason to scan a slide or photo is to bring it at the computer screen! But this gives a wrong impression of the quality of the slide or photo! First of all, screen display is becoming more and more common. But that is not the only reason to scan a slide. You need to scan if you want to retouch, alter or composite the image in a way that you can't do in a darkroom. You need to scan it if you want to reproduce the image in publications or other types of quantity printing. You need to scan if you want to produce a DVD. You "generally" need to scan the slide if you want to send out some sheets of thumbnails for selection or to be kept on file somewhere. Unless you want to get a lab to make contact sheets from your slides, or you want to send the actual slides out. You need to scan it if that is what the client wants for whatever they are planning to do with it. Maybe it is for a billboard or a backlit display. Are you going to print these in your darkroom? You need to scan it if the image has to be sent somewhere fast or you don't want the original out of your hands. You need to scan it if it needs to be in two or more places at once and you only have one original. You probably should scan it to protect and insure the original from damage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joop van Heijgen Posted October 18, 2007 Share #27 Posted October 18, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) First of all, screen display is becoming more and more common. But that is not the only reason to scan a slide. You need to scan if you want to retouch, alter or composite the image in a way that you can't do in a darkroom. You need to scan it if you want to reproduce the image in publications or other types of quantity printing. You need to scan if you want to produce a DVD. You "generally" need to scan the slide if you want to send out some sheets of thumbnails for selection or to be kept on file somewhere. Unless you want to get a lab to make contact sheets from your slides, or you want to send the actual slides out. You need to scan it if that is what the client wants for whatever they are planning to do with it. Maybe it is for a billboard or a backlit display. Are you going to print these in your darkroom? You need to scan it if the image has to be sent somewhere fast or you don't want the original out of your hands. You need to scan it if it needs to be in two or more places at once and you only have one original. You probably should scan it to protect and insure the original from damage. For me these statements are the best reason to go complete digital! The potential high end quality of 'analog' is for me the main reason not to scan! Scanning analog photos gives a loss of quality! Digital from the beginning to the end (certain on screen) gives no loss of quality! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 19, 2007 Share #28 Posted October 19, 2007 For me these statements are the best reason to go complete digital! The potential high end quality of 'analog' is for me the main reason not to scan! Scanning analog photos gives a loss of quality! Digital from the beginning to the end (certain on screen) gives no loss of quality! Makes sense to me that's why I shoot digitally. It suits my clients needs. If I were shooting just for myself, film could be an option. When I refer to the need to scan, I'm also talking about my entire library of older film images - if any of them have the potential for stock sales. Stock agency don't want film files any more. (My agency just returned all of my film images.) Digital photography is pretty expensive or impractical in MF and large format. So scanning still plays a bigger role for these. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebt Posted October 19, 2007 Share #29 Posted October 19, 2007 I'm not far from getting rid of all my digital gear. 90% of my photography is with A M6TTL and a M3 Double Stroke, or a Nikon F-100 and a Nikon F-5. I have a Nikon D-70, D-200, and an Olympus E-1. I cannot remember the last time I used the D-70 or E-1, and I barely use the D-200, and when I do, The magical feeling is just not there. I was all set to buy the Nikon D-3, but I don't think I'll use it after the honey moon stage. So now I'm really thinking about picking up a brand new grey hammertone 0.85 MP. I know for a fact I'll use that on a daily basis. I love shooting film. I love everything about shooting film--from keeping the film cold to hand loading a roll. Digital has a nice quality but I find it boring at best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted October 19, 2007 Share #30 Posted October 19, 2007 I am film photographer. And I will say next: For me there is no point to shoot film and scan it. If you want to use film, make whole process, that is: shoot film, process it, use enlarger and silver photographic paper and process paper. If you shoot film and scan it, it is better to sell your film camera and scanner and buy and use digital imaging tool (digital camera) from start. Only making silver print from film give full analoug experience and "real look". Of course, if you use slide, than projecting with slide projector or making ilfochome print. There is no point to convert film to digital by scanning when you can have digital image from the start, that is from camera directly. Regards. I shoot film and scan it almost exclusively now. It's only if a client wants a silver print then I have my lab do it (first making a matching digital print). Reasons: most of my clients want a digital file no matter what and years of exposure to darkroom chemicals have left me with health problems. Using my Imacon 646 and an Epson 4800 I'm pulling fantastic prints from my negs. Of course nothing can touch a silver print in my opinion, but living with headaches etc. isn't worth the price. Once matted and under glass most people have a hard time telling the difference. But you have to invest in a good scanner or having scans done. A Nikon just doesn't cut it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron110n Posted October 20, 2007 Share #31 Posted October 20, 2007 A Nikon just doesn't cut it. It depends on your developing skills. years of exposure to darkroom chemicals have left me with health problems. I think you are talking about work injury. The price you pay if you don't value the importance of an Organic Vapor Respirator. Same price you will pay if you insist on a Heppa (Dust Particle) Respirator on fumes. Much worst from the very begining of your lab carrer, your health condition was not evaluated by a health proffesional (Occupatinal Medicine) if you were physicaly fit for the job. No excuses here when it comes to safety. My day job is to support the manufacturing of polyester and polyurethane composites at all plants nationwide. Developing chemicals is a pussy cat to Methyl Ethyl Ketone Peroxide that we roboticaly atomize through a spray gun. We also call this material, Catalyst, and the fumes can burn you respiratory system easy. I have no problem with MEKP, I wear the proper protection always. The later and current developing materials are now odorless. Back then 70's to late 80's when you were inhailing those fumes, the stop-bath was the worst till the old Bush signed the clean air act. The new stop bath is now odorless and it stops faster. I will not advise that you go back to film developing as a resut of your previous "work injury". Take care of your health. Best, -Ron ________________ Caveman's Gallery Neolithic Artistry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotohuis Posted October 20, 2007 Share #32 Posted October 20, 2007 It depends on your developing skills. My day job is to support the manufacturing of polyester and polyurethane composites at all plants nationwide. Hi Ron, Well in that case I am sure you are aware about GPC analysis and things like viscometers and laser light scattering analysis. A chemical background is always easy when doing your darkroom work yourself Best regards and have a nice week end, Robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tranquillity Posted October 20, 2007 Share #33 Posted October 20, 2007 There are three very important points here. 1. Film is Familiar - especially if you were born before Microsoft. Familiar is always comfortable. 2. Film is Predictable - you know the "look" of say, Tri-x developed in D-76, as opposed to the look of the same Tri-x developed in say, Rodinal. 3. Film is Challenging - and superlative creativity is a usually a consequence of the human intellect meeting a challenge. Yes, I too have occasionally got some nice shots with a digicam, but have always wondered how much nicer it would have been if shot with the Leica M … Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haris Posted October 20, 2007 Share #34 Posted October 20, 2007 I shoot film and scan it almost exclusively now. It's only if a client wants a silver print then I have my lab do it (first making a matching digital print). Reasons: most of my clients want a digital file no matter what and years of exposure to darkroom chemicals have left me with health problems. Using my Imacon 646 and an Epson 4800 I'm pulling fantastic prints from my negs. Of course nothing can touch a silver print in my opinion, but living with headaches etc. isn't worth the price. Once matted and under glass most people have a hard time telling the difference. But you have to invest in a good scanner or having scans done. A Nikon just doesn't cut it. Thing is (for me): If you are in business and know your client want digital file, then you use digital camera and give them digital file. If you use film/paper, and someone see your photograph and wants to buy it, you tell him/her it is only available and silver print. (or slide) If my clients wants digital file, for them is not important how I got that image, film/scan or digital camera. So, for business I would use digital camera. But, I use film/paper because of reasons which are inside me, into my life philosophy, and not business driven. So, in my case I won't make compromise. If someone wants my photographs only can get it in silver print borm. Period. If I am ready to compromise, then it is much less fuss to use digital from start. Of course, if you have health problems, then all other reasons are irrelevant... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron110n Posted October 22, 2007 Share #35 Posted October 22, 2007 Hi Ron, Well in that case I am sure you are aware about GPC analysis and things like viscometers and laser light scattering analysis. A chemical background is always easy when doing your darkroom work yourself Best regards and have a nice week end, Robert Sorry Robert, I missed this. I am most familiar with the viscometer to get a reading of the viscosity and thix of the material. This is an important reading before the plant spray with a newly prepared material, This way, the viscometer will tell us if there are issues, if there are... then we can trouble shoot the material. For my project use, I also need the viscometer reading when I'm developing a prototype. I don't get plant people to do the spraying for me, I do it myself. One of my prototype was voted by the company to feature at the Las Vegas Bathroom and Kitchen Show, last summer. Oh well... that is my kind of exibiton, and I wish it was photography. Laser light scattering analysis, my only participation on this is with color change or a series of units will pass through the production line and "change color on the Gel Coat". Roboticaly two color share the same exit whip, and this way we can adjust the acetone flush time through Allen Bradley Micrologix program on the PLC. The Laser light scattering analysis will tell us if the color of the previous unit is staining the next unit after the color change. It's an amazing device... my eyes will tell me ok, but the Laser light scattering analysis will tell fail. Then we adjust the plc program some more. GPC and HPLC analysis , we have that but I have no participation on the equiptment. It is through our chemical engineers and chemist. Let me ask... are you a chemical engineer... other than taking pictures and having your own photo lab? Best, -Ron ________________ Caveman's Gallery Neolithic Artistry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotohuis Posted October 22, 2007 Share #36 Posted October 22, 2007 Let me ask... are you a chemical engineer... other than taking pictures and having your own photo lab? Well, from origin I am an electronic engineer but indeed I have worked over 15 years in the HPLC - GPC business. I was also TOC product specialist and calibration engineer in the semi-conductor industry. But the work in photography is much more pleasant and I have combined this with a 16-20h a week part time technical job. So in electronics and chemical analysis I am pretty informed what are the possibilities. best regards, Robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron110n Posted October 24, 2007 Share #37 Posted October 24, 2007 Late response again Robert... sorry. Geez, so you're familiar familiar with those, test equiptment plus an Electronics Engineer. You must be very familiar with Industrial Automation and Programable Logic Controllers. Looks like we got a job for you here at Anaheim, CA. We will be teaming together, although traveling could sometimes upset the wife or girlfriend. No wonder we seem to have an Engineering R&D here at the Film Forum and I work for Corporate Engineering R&D. We'll keep posting our Prototype Image here at the Film Forum R&D and see what more Engineering Revision is required. Best, -Ron Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
underground Posted December 5, 2007 Share #38 Posted December 5, 2007 Malland, I have read some of your responses regarding digital verses film, and I think your a big humbug man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted December 5, 2007 Share #39 Posted December 5, 2007 Good example of a well-reasoned, taional response. —Mitch/Paris Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndjambrose Posted December 5, 2007 Share #40 Posted December 5, 2007 ... except for about a dozen taken with the Leica D-Lux 3 — except for some obvious cases, you'll be hard-pressed to judge which are film and which are digital: Mitch Alland's slideshow on Flickr —Mitch/Bangkok Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland Mitch - from memory, didn't you post a challenge like this once before (on photo.net) and somebody immediately guessed which shots were digital. With 100% accuracy too, if I recall correctly. (Apologies if I'm not remembering this correctly). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.