Why Scanned Film vs Digital Camera?

[Pieter12]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Digital printing comes with a set of hassles and headaches I can do without: Maintaining calibration between monitor and printer, different paper profiles, the cost of ink, clogged printer heads, the total lack of maintentance support from manufactures and suppliers (maybe the really high-end pro gear has factory maintenance programs--I sincerely hope so). Every once in a while my Epson R3000 goes into a vicious circle of not recognizing cartridges (OEM) and I have to spend 15 frustrating minutes removing and reseating various cartridges before I can print.

[Pieter12]

6 hours ago, pedaes said:

There is a fair bit of 'own hands and judgements' in getting a good digital print also. Just different.

The wet print and digital print are not in competition - go with what you prefer.

There’s no “undo” in the darkroom.

[hansvons]

10 hours ago, Pieter12 said:

Digital printing comes with a set of hassles and headaches I can do without: Maintaining calibration between monitor and printer, different paper profiles, the cost of ink, clogged printer heads, the total lack of maintentance support from manufactures and suppliers (maybe the really high-end pro gear has factory maintenance programs--I sincerely hope so).

I cannot corroborate that. I recently bought a brand new Canon 44” printer for the price of a 35mm APO M lens. No clogging etc. It just prints, and does that on an ultimate level.

Matching monitor and printer is not difficult. The trick is the paper. Hahnemühle Photo Rag and my Adobe98 5000 K calibrated monitor match 98% in proper 5000 K light. If you want to use bright white (OBA containing) papers or those new natural papers like Hahnemühle Hemp you will experience issues. But even that isn't a problem if you understand that monitor and paper are very different media and will never be matched perfectly. It’s your experience that bridges the gap. 

Now wet printing. A very different animal. First, there is no monitor that provides you with a target. There’s only the negative and the print. The print is the target and the result in one entity. The acceptance level is much higher as this is almost a magical process and there is no inspiring example on a monitor. Only when confronted with strong opinions (could be yourself or a client) a deep dive into the (limited) options of wet printing is necessary. This can lead to many iterations of the same print until the desired result is achieved. 

I had some of my works c-printed on various papers. The results are photographic in the best sense. If that is what you are after you got your workflow. Inkjet printing on a high level wont be able to copy that look. But it’s able to create a new way of printing with an an enormous range of results. From ethereal images on super-thin Japanese papers to images with a tremendous punch in colours and blacks to B&W images on proper baryta paper that rivals its wet printed siblings on many levels, and in size outperforms them easily if you wished. 

So, in my book, no rivalery. Only choices. 

[jaapv]

11 hours ago, Pieter12 said:

Digital printing comes with a set of hassles and headaches I can do without: Maintaining calibration between monitor and printer, different paper profiles, the cost of ink, clogged printer heads, the total lack of maintentance support from manufactures and suppliers (maybe the really high-end pro gear has factory maintenance programs--I sincerely hope so). Every once in a while my Epson R3000 goes into a vicious circle of not recognizing cartridges (OEM) and I have to spend 15 frustrating minutes removing and reseating various cartridges before I can print.

It cannot be worse than printing from colour negatives - been there, done that - gave up and shifted to having a pro laboratory doing it for me because of the hassle with temperatures, unstable chemicals, colours going in all directions etc..

[Einst_Stein]

11 hours ago, Pieter12 said:

There’s no “undo” in the darkroom.

But digital does. So this is exactly the beauty to choose one or the other.

[adan]

On 8/10/2024 at 5:06 PM, BWColor said:

I understand using film and a wet darkroom, but something that I don’t understand is digitizing a film image.  Why not find a digital camera to your liking?

Because no one produces a true digital equivalent of these (haptics, format size):

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!

To produce work like this (not all photographic printwork is one-off or single-image printwork):

[Pieter12]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

18 hours ago, adan said:

Because no one produces a true digital equivalent of these (haptics, format size):

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!

To produce work like this (not all photographic printwork is one-off or single-image printwork):

Maybe not the full frame size, but there are digital backs for the Hasselbads as well as the Rolleiflex/Leaf/Sinar Hy6 and of course the PhaseOne cameras.

[250swb]

51 minutes ago, Pieter12 said:

Maybe not the full frame size, but there are digital backs for the Hasselbads as well as the Rolleiflex/Leaf/Sinar Hy6 and of course the PhaseOne cameras.

That’s a bit like saying you think Prosecco is the same as Champagne, really you came up with that? 

[Pieter12]

48 minutes ago, 250swb said:

That’s a bit like saying you think Prosecco is the same as Champagne, really you came up with that? 

Let's see, you pointed out haptics (a trendy term I hate) and format size. These are the same cameras that shoot film, so the haptics are pretty much the same. Format size is a limitation of today's technology and prices, but the equivalent resolution of those cameras far exceeds 6x6 film. The true difference is film vs digital, not something you brought up.

[250swb]

2 minutes ago, Pieter12 said:

Let's see, you pointed out haptics (a trendy term I hate) and format size. These are the same cameras that shoot film, so the haptics are pretty much the same. Format size is a limitation of today's technology and prices, but the equivalent resolution of those cameras far exceeds 6x6 film. The true difference is film vs digital, not something you brought up.

I hate the term ‘haptics’, when did I use that word? Formats are not limitations in themselves, film is better than digital if you like film more. So why do you feel entitled to tell me i should use digital if it clearly isn’t an equivalent?

[Pieter12]

13 minutes ago, 250swb said:

I hate the term ‘haptics’, when did I use that word? Formats are not limitations in themselves, film is better than digital if you like film more. So why do you feel entitled to tell me i should use digital if it clearly isn’t an equivalent?

I realize you weren't the one who started this Hasselblad film camera thing and used the term "haptics," it was post #26. You can use what you want, I don't give a flying fk.

[Pieter12]

1 hour ago, Pieter12 said:

I realize you weren't the one who started this Hasselblad film camera thing and used the term "haptics," it was post #26. You can use what you want, I don't give a flying fk.

Although I don't care what you shoot, the moderators do. It has to be a Leica.

[250swb]

8 hours ago, Pieter12 said:

Although I don't care what you shoot, the moderators do. It has to be a Leica.

To help you in your 'argument' I'll report myself to the moderators because as well as Leica I also use many types of Nikon for 35mm and digital, Bronica and Rolleiflex for medium format, Shen Hao and MPP for large format, and far too many types of P&S or niche cameras to count. And to add to the cameras contaminating my insight into 'gear' I did own Hasselblad's for many years. However just as you are warning me what I should do I'll give a friendly warning to you, do not under any circumstances go and look at the 'I Like Film....' thread because you'll most definitely have a kitten.

Edited August 14, 2024 by 250swb

[Pieter12]

12 hours ago, 250swb said:

To help you in your 'argument' I'll report myself to the moderators because as well as Leica I also use many types of Nikon for 35mm and digital, Bronica and Rolleiflex for medium format, Shen Hao and MPP for large format, and far too many types of P&S or niche cameras to count. And to add to the cameras contaminating my insight into 'gear' I did own Hasselblad's for many years. However just as you are warning me what I should do I'll give a friendly warning to you, do not under any circumstances go and look at the 'I Like Film....' thread because you'll most definitely have a kitten.

Why do you think I don't like film? It is 90% of what I shoot and wet print. I don't particularly care for digital scans of film except when absolutely necessary. I won't list the film cameras I own and use. A couple are out of fashion Leicas. But for me, although 35mm has its place, I much prefer medium format film.

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!

Edited August 14, 2024 by Pieter12
add photo

[250swb]

46 minutes ago, Pieter12 said:

Why do you think I don't like film? It is 90% of what I shoot and wet print. 

 

Sorry I was just going on what you've posted which predominantly seems to be about digital, but I'll have a look at your images in the film forums and your previous postings about film photography, although so far it's a pretty tough assignment I've given myself.

[f8low]

A few benefits of shooting film that are independent of what you do with the negatives. Those work for me personally:

• I put more thought into composition and I am more critical about the light. If it light isn’t good, it’s very hard to get a very good shot, no matter what medium.
• Let’s say I travel for a week and hope to get two or three shots worth putting up on my wall. Then it’s much easier to identify those two or three pictures if I have to sift through 3*36 shots, not three thousand… I find this ‘identification’ process to really take effort…
• With a slight smile: Every photo makes me happy twice - when shooting and a few days/weeks later when (in my case) scanning it…

Edited August 14, 2024 by f8low

[Pieter12]

16 minutes ago, 250swb said:

Sorry I was just going on what you've posted which predominantly seems to be about digital, but I'll have a look at your images in the film forums and your previous postings about film photography, although so far it's a pretty tough assignment I've given myself.

I’ll make it easy: pdekoninck.com

The street and color work are digital, most of the rest is MF film, scanned from prints.

[costa43]

To my eye there is a significant difference in aesthetic when comparing a scanned film image to a digital image and I prefer the look of the film image. I do also enjoy digital photography though. Outside of the aesthetic is the journey I guess. Photography in general slows me down and helps me switch off from work and life admin but shooting film does this more so than digital. Everything is instant nowadays.

I think what I’m trying to say is that the final image, although extremely important is not the only point of consideration when comparing photography with a digital camera vs shooting film and scanning for me. If you can setup a darkroom and wet print then great but the hybrid approach is one that allows me to share and communicate far easier whilst maintaining many aspects of a hobby that I enjoy. 

Edited August 15, 2024 by costa43

[Doug A]

In fact, every image we see on this forum, or any other forum, is either digital or hybrid. For the images that started as film something, either the negative or a darkroom print from the negative, was scanned. 

Edited August 15, 2024 by Doug A

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[250swb]

19 hours ago, Pieter12 said:

I’ll make it easy: pdekoninck.com

The street and color work are digital, most of the rest is MF film, scanned from prints.

Some very nice photographs, it would be good to see you posting some in the ‘I like film…’ thread.