Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
arthury

"Film is not dead" website

Recommended Posts

Guest jimmy pro

Thanks for a nice morning chuckle. It's just so funny, the passion for shooting film...and then, take a digital picture (aka scan) of it. The kicker is a section entitled "Collecting and Using Classic 35mm SLR's". That's really what it's about, isn't it? I know one or two guys personally who still shoot film and they print with an optical enlarger in a wet darkroom. When those guys say they prefer film over digital, I can't argue. But when you take a digital picture of a neg, well....that is digital, just a clunky way of getting to a digital file that lets you use a "classic" film camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for a nice morning chuckle. It's just so funny, the passion for shooting film...and then, take a digital picture (aka scan) of it. The kicker is a section entitled "Collecting and Using Classic 35mm SLR's". That's really what it's about, isn't it? I know one or two guys personally who still shoot film and they print with an optical enlarger in a wet darkroom. When those guys say they prefer film over digital, I can't argue. But when you take a digital picture of a neg, well....that is digital, just a clunky way of getting to a digital file that lets you use a "classic" film camera.

 

As someone who uses film for the majority of my work I would say that there is still a big difference between a scanned film and a purely digital file, in terms of the look and feel of the eventual image.

 

I use it in preference too not just as an excuse to use a classic camera!

 

I agree that the purist approach should prevail i.e. wet printing from the neg (or slide/viewing whatever). But then shooting film in the first place allows me the best of both worlds IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for a nice morning chuckle. It's just so funny, the passion for shooting film...and then, take a digital picture (aka scan) of it. The kicker is a section entitled "Collecting and Using Classic 35mm SLR's". That's really what it's about, isn't it? I know one or two guys personally who still shoot film and they print with an optical enlarger in a wet darkroom. When those guys say they prefer film over digital, I can't argue. But when you take a digital picture of a neg, well....that is digital, just a clunky way of getting to a digital file that lets you use a "classic" film camera.

 

Rubbish.

Scanning a negative does not magically transform it into just another digicam, the feeling and look of the film are preserved.

The thought that someone finds that modus 'clunky' just shows ignorance of the highest order.

There is no right way to make an image, and suggesting that people only use film because of their attachment to vintage cameras is simply ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And no scanning of film can't replace making print right way, that is enarger, silver paper, developer... drying

 

I do agree with Jimmy, there is no point to use film and scan it. In that case, better to use digicam right away. If one want to use film, it should be used right way, that is from film to enlarger printing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And no scanning of film can't replace making print right way, that is enarger, silver paper, developer... drying

 

I do agree with James, there is no point to use film and scan it. In that case, better to use digicam right away. If one want to use film, it should be used right way, that is from film to enlarger printing.

 

As Mark has already said that is complete rubbish. There is NO right way and wrong way. I don't boil my own cow bones to make my gelatin - I'd better stop using film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do agree with Jimmy, there is no point to use film and scan it. In that case, better to use digicam right away.

 

So, if you scan - say - a Velvia slide, a Kodachrome and a nicely saturated colour neg film you won't see any difference in the resulting images?

 

I suggest you try it yourself and see.

 

There are very good reasons to scan film! You retain the colour/grain/feel of the negative and as I've already said, the image looks totally different to a digital camera image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scanning a negative does not magically transform it into just another digicam, the feeling and look of the film are preserved

 

Agreed.

 

It was buying a scanner - and seeing how badly most labs mangle prints that got me back into photography. Developing and scanning meant that everything was under my control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rubbish.

Scanning a negative does not magically transform it into just another digicam, the feeling and look of the film are preserved.

The thought that someone finds that modus 'clunky' just shows ignorance of the highest order.

There is no right way to make an image, and suggesting that people only use film because of their attachment to vintage cameras is simply ridiculous.

 

Well said, that man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, if you scan - say - a Velvia slide, a Kodachrome and a nicely saturated colour neg film you won't see any difference in the resulting images?

 

I suggest you try it yourself and see.

 

There are very good reasons to scan film! You retain the colour/grain/feel of the negative and as I've already said, the image looks totally different to a digital camera image.

 

I work at DTP jobs, and scan films and prints for 13 years. So, I know what scanning is and can do.

 

Of course digicam and scanning will make different look of image, but if you shoot Velvia, then use projector or make Ilfochome print. That is right way to get full potential of Velvia.

 

If you wil scan it, and eventually make print (most probably it will be on inkjet), then digicam can be used at first place...

 

And if you use b/w film, then scanning as absolutely out of place...

 

Only real reason for scanning film for me is to include image made on film in publication/web. Everything else are excuses not to doing it right way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will have to agree to disagree with you Haris. Its all a means to an end, no one way is right or wrong and different approaches produce different results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As Mark has already said that is complete rubbish. There is NO right way and wrong way. I don't boil my own cow bones to make my gelatin - I'd better stop using film.

 

About rubbish. Just because you want to go easy way and scan film instead make real enlargement, doesnt mean that right way to do things is rubbish.

 

So, I could say, scanning, except in situations of using images in publication/web is rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will have to agree to disagree with you Haris....

 

This is free world (or is it?

 

But I have to disagree with "means to the end" approcah. If goal justify the means, then everything is OK, and history is full of horrible things done by moto "goal justifies the means"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest stnami
This is free world

.

.

.

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://www.thatsit.biz/etrouart/im/woopg.jpg&key=bb6b1c8912cc28421fd20a296f4c5ac1ae235846114409dd1cd67d95fe803144">

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
About rubbish. Just because you want to go easy way and scan film instead make real enlargement, doesnt mean that right way to do things is rubbish.

 

So, I could say, scanning, except in situations of using images in publication/web is rubbish.

 

There is NO right or wrong way to make an image....

 

I scan my photos print digitally and I hand print on a DeVere 504 sure the wet way is better, but if you scan there is nothing wrong in that either.

 

Scanned film can look beautiful too, and its the only way to share on the web. Take a look at some images on APUG (I know you post there) do you think those galleries have less artistic merit or just look like digicam images?

No its a stupid argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you wil scan it, and eventually make print (most probably it will be on inkjet), then digicam can be used at first place...

.

 

So what you are saying amounts to.

I should stop using film and just buy a digicam?

 

What if I like the way a certain film scans?

 

Is my art a lesser art than yours because I choose a different modus?

 

Do you really think film–scan–print = digicam–Print? that the two are the same?

 

There is no right way to make an image!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Film gives me both options. I need digital files for our publications and like to make traditional black and white prints for our volunteer fire company and other organizations. I can do both with film. So far, I don't know how to make 'wet darkroom' prints from digital files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wls.shanghai

hello gentleman & LEICA-friends,

 

Film is beautiful

Film is wonderful

Film is alive

 

....for ever!!!!

 

...enjoy my "analog-photo" (scan only for the web)

 

seen in Germany, Alps

 

LEICAFLEX SL2

Elmarit 2.8/135 plus cir-polfilter

Kodakchrome

Epson V700

 

regards

wls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

leave alone the beauty of wet-print,

leave the the fact that even a scanned film has its virtues and authentic-look

 

with all the "inconvenience", is there anything wrong to photograph with film even if it is for the joy of using a purely mechanical camera (especially since some of those are supreme quality foto-instruments full of inspiration) ?? :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...