Shoot film/develop digitally-- workflow

[Guest jimmy pro]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is possible to live in and enjoy both worlds.

 

Shoot film then take a digital picture of it=digital print.

Shoot digital=digital print.

 

Where's the second world there?

 

 

 

I agree totally. I also listen to both vinyl records and CD's, and have audio equipment with tubes as well as solid state.

 

But, do you record your vinyl records onto CD's and then play them on your CD player? That's analagous to shooting film and then scanning it.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[dalippe]

A scanner's got a lens and a chip and it take's a digital picture of a neg or slide. It's basicly a digital camera only with a (hopefully) wider dynamic range. So your paying for film, paying for processing (chems at least, if you DIY and you think your time's worth zilch), and then taking your time to take a digital picture of the film. Now doesn't that sound dumb, unless your motivation is to use a "classic" camera? And in that case, wouldn't you want to have the full "classic" experience, enlarger, trays of soup and all?

 

Scanning film is easy. Scanning film well isn't. A scanner will pick up all the grain and "digitize" it. If you've ever seen it, it doesn't look like film grain. It's obviously digital, in fact, the noise from the M8 at 1250 looks more like film grain than most scanned film. Dust and scratches are also a problem with silver-halide b&w because the scanner dust removal software don't work on regular b&w. So you better get prepared to make friends with the clone tool in CS3. Or, shoot cromogenic, but now you give up all the fun of argueing on forums about what's the best film/developer/time/temp combo

 

Like someone else said, going half and half is nuts IMHO, if the photograph is your main concern, verses useing a nostalgic old camera. And hell, the M8 is damn close to an M3 in most ways other than being digital.

 

I am motivated to explore this not by the factor you mention (wanting to shoot a classic camera), but by the possibility that it will be easier and less time intensive to achieve a certain look by shooting the film than by post-processing the dng to look like the film. That is why so many of my concerns center on the time and effort required for scanning. So thank you for sharing your experiences with the difficulty of getting good scans.

 

At the moment, Delta 3200 ISO BW film does in fact allow for certain shots that can not be emulated with the M8. Underexposing the M8 at 2500 ISO produces worse looking results as I recently learned the hard way (see the thread I started in the M8 forum asking for help cleaning up such pictures). Admittedly, that is a very narrow application and probably not in itself good enough reason to start shooting film again. Especially because if I'm willing to shoot a D3 instead of an M8, the advantage in low light probably goes to digital rather than film...

[chris_livsey]

But, do you record your vinyl records onto CD's and then play them on your CD player? .

 

 

Oh yes ! But using this device:

 

Stereophile: Alesis MasterLink ML-9600 Hard Disk/CD-R Recorder

 

That gives you 24bit 96Khz recordings

[ron110n]

Thanks, I will give Silverfast a try. I also just bought a Mamiya Universal Press 6x9 on eBay so the extra speed would help a lot. Redding is a beautiful area, especially this time of year. Have fun! P.S. Like you, I have a D300 that does nothing but collect dust (except for my daughter's track meets).

 

Same here Gesper, I also got all my gear from eBay, except for the M7 that I got from Tony Rose and the F3HP that I owned since I was 21 yrs old. I don't make a living on my snaps and my eBay purchased Rollei 6008i was unthinkable to own durring the pre-digital years, for budget reasons. I only "dream" of owning an MF back then. Now the eBay final bid is going up again on used film camera. Freestyle Photographic had an increase of young people buying films and developing chemicals. They are not pro photographers, they're just like us... "they're artist" seeking for results they can't get in digital. Remember, one "brand of film / lens signature combo" is equals to one particular sensor / lens combo.

 

But of couse when I'm in a convention with a lot of people posing, "I'll shoot digital". They want their picture right away! If some one want a special shot and I find that person special, "I'll shoot film" and develop it myself so it come out the way I like it.

 

Some paint oil on canvas, and some paint water color on art board. It's a matter of artistic taste for the particular occasion. As for me... "I paint Latex on dry-wall"... I'm outa here.

 

-Ron

[sreidvt]

Some quick thoughts:

 

1. Scanning film well is never "plug n' play" but with practice one can get faster at knowing how to get what he or she wants from the scan.

 

2. I highly recommend Vuescan

 

3. For small format negatives, I use an older Minolta Dimage 5400 which does beautifully with B&W negs. This scanner has long been well-regarded so if you can find a good used copy, consider it.

 

4. With a bit of practice, one can certainly learn to develop good and useable B&W negs.

 

I don't shoot film anymore but I do sometimes need to scan older work.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Guest jimmy pro]

Oh yes ! But using this device:

 

Stereophile: Alesis MasterLink ML-9600 Hard Disk/CD-R Recorder

 

That gives you 24bit 96Khz recordings

 

I know there are recordplayers that have USB outputs so you can convert vinyl records to CD. I can see doing that, just as I can see scanning old negs and slides. What I can't see is choosing to go through the expense and bother of shooting film, only to take a digital picture of it with a scanner. I don't see vary many people doing it who are useing modern, high-tech film cameras. Most people choosing to shoot film and then scan it are useing vintage cameras. That says it all to me. Love that old screwmount, love that old M3, but hate darkroom, so shoot film and then scan it. Nothing wrong with that, but why need to make ridiculous arguement trying to convince people it's because the results are better than you can get with digital capture? Without some work, scanned film just does not look like optically-printed film. With maybe the same work in post, you can make digital capture look just as much like optically-printed film as you can by working a scan in post, only without the expense and time of film.

[gesper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know there are recordplayers that have USB outputs so you can convert vinyl records to CD. I can see doing that, just as I can see scanning old negs and slides. What I can't see is choosing to go through the expense and bother of shooting film, only to take a digital picture of it with a scanner. I don't see vary many people doing it who are useing modern, high-tech film cameras. Most people choosing to shoot film and then scan it are useing vintage cameras. That says it all to me. Love that old screwmount, love that old M3, but hate darkroom, so shoot film and then scan it. Nothing wrong with that, but why need to make ridiculous argument trying to convince people it's because the results are better than you can get with digital capture? Without some work, scanned film just does not look like optically-printed film. With maybe the same work in post, you can make digital capture look just as much like optically-printed film as you can by working a scan in post, only without the expense and time of film.

 

First of all, I am only doing film because I like it, not because it is or isn't capable of the best images after conversion to digital (which I am in no way qualified to judge anyway). More important for my purposes, the vast majority of images I shoot are not award winners so I only need decent quality to sort through them on screen. Then for the best ones I can always either print from digital or get the negatives professionally printed. In the latter case, it is less easy to argue that one loses whatever quality advantages film has outside the scanning process. At least if I start with film I don't lose the analog option.

[roguewave]

David, I'm sure by now you have figured out that like any art form, each practitioner has his own workflow & orientation.

 

Here's my $.02. I have an Epson 4000 flatbed scanner & bought Vuescan because it works magic for me with my scanner. The plastic trays are a bit of a drag & only give you24 frames to scan. When shooting B&W, I scan in Color Transparency mode, as I feel it gives beter depth and all the color casts from the film that I can manipulate as tonning.

More importantly, since I view my negs on a lightbox first. I have a good idea which frames I want to expend my energy on. That said, I always do a preview in Viewscan to get a "contact sheet" and the software allows me to enlarge each frame, make selections and change setting on the fly if I want a "custom" scan.

 

The scan quality is superb to my eye. What I what from the scan is the most information in a fairly neutral range for me to create the final image in Photoshop. Those that what an "out of box", easy solution get what they ask for; speed and generally high contrast images which bleed out important information and made very nice & acceptable prints.

 

I do all my Post Processing in LAB mode, as it gives me hundreds of more ways to remix the essential elements of the B&W spectrm of tones & contrast. Be sure to know what you are after before you make the plunge. Spped Kills. It kills the ability to spend essential time needed to muse over the image and help to plan what you want to express and to discover what's in there. Good Luck. Ben

[Guest jimmy pro]

The only quabbel I have with your workflow is the scanner. For 35mm no bedscanner can touch a filmscanner. Any of the 4000 and up dpi scanners (Minolta, Nikon, discontinued Canon, Polaroid) give better results and there not that costly these days, and available used at great prices as more and more people give up on the chore and bore of shooting film and scanning. Just beware of the current crop of to-good-to-be-true inexpensive "7200dpi" filmscanners, they sacrifice dMax for dpi.

 

 

First of all, I am only doing film because I like it, not because it is or isn't capable of the best images after conversion to digital (which I am in no way qualified to judge anyway). More important for my purposes, the vast majority of images I shoot are not award winners so I only need decent quality to sort through them on screen. Then for the best ones I can always either print from digital or get the negatives professionally printed. In the latter case, it is less easy to argue that one loses whatever quality advantages film has outside the scanning process. At least if I start with film I don't lose the analog option.

 

Ok, but make sure your lab is printing optically. If there scanning as the large majority do, then your giving up the "analog option" without knowing it.

[ericperlberg]

A curious coincidence. I went to hear David Goldblatt tonight at Tate Modern in London (it was a well conducted interview I thought, I really liked the man). At one point in discussing his move to colour in his photography the ol' subject of digital and analogue came up and DG said (I paraphrase).

 

"I still shoot film (mostly he added paranthetically without explaining) but I no longer develop my film in the darkroom. Instead I have it scanned and I have a computer (photoshop) assistant whose work I direct.

 

I find I get far more control over how I want my images to look by working digitally than I do working in the darkroom. Somehow I've never felt that film has the right qualities to get my shots to look they I want them to. Now that I have them done digitally, I can get the images to look the way I want. It's not that we do anything to them that we couldn't do in the darkroom. I just find digital has opened up new options that I very much want to take advantage of. I think digital is fantastic"

 

I write this not to rub salt in the wound of the great digital/film debate but to add one man's (and a rather talented one at that) opinion on the very issue raised here of why someone might want to "make a digital photograph of a piece of film" And I recognise that what is good for David Goldblatt doesn't have to be good for you or me, its just that I found it curious that he unknowingly contributed a post to this thread.

 

btw, he didn't say if he sends his film out to the SA equivalent of snappy snaps or develops them in his kitchen. I should have asked.

[gesper]

A curious coincidence. I went to hear David Goldblatt tonight at Tate Modern in London (it was a well conducted interview I thought, I really liked the man). At one point in discussing his move to colour in his photography the ol' subject of digital and analogue came up and DG said (I paraphrase).

 

"I still shoot film (mostly he added paranthetically without explaining) but I no longer develop my film in the darkroom. Instead I have it scanned and I have a computer (photoshop) assistant whose work I direct.

 

I find I get far more control over how I want my images to look by working digitally than I do working in the darkroom. Somehow I've never felt that film has the right qualities to get my shots to look they I want them to. Now that I have them done digitally, I can get the images to look the way I want. It's not that we do anything to them that we couldn't do in the darkroom. I just find digital has opened up new options that I very much want to take advantage of. I think digital is fantastic"

 

I write this not to rub salt in the wound of the great digital/film debate but to add one man's (and a rather talented one at that) opinion on the very issue raised here of why someone might want to "make a digital photograph of a piece of film" And I recognise that what is good for David Goldblatt doesn't have to be good for you or me, its just that I found it curious that he unknowingly contributed a post to this thread.

 

btw, he didn't say if he sends his film out to the SA equivalent of snappy snaps or develops them in his kitchen. I should have asked.

 

Interesting. Did he indicate why he doesn't just start with digital?

[ericperlberg]

Interesting. Did he indicate why he doesn't just start with digital?

 

He didn't say. I was relieved that the conversation lingered on the topic of film/digital no longer than what I've included. It came up because the interviewer, a very astute art professor who though intimate with his work became a bit too academic at times for DG's liking. She asked a question to him proposing a philoso-photographic distinction between digital and film and he would have none of it. The explanation I paraphrased above was his way of saying to her that it was all just photography except now you could do it with more control than ever. He pointed out that Stalin had Trotsky's (?) Lenin's (?) head removed from every photograph of Stalin they were in throughout the soviet union and he didn't need photoshop to do it.

[roguewave]

David, I'm sure by now you have figured out that like any art form, each practitioner has his own workflow & orientation.

 

Here's my $.02. I have an Epson 4000 flatbed scanner & bought Vuescan because it works magic for me with my scanner. The plastic trays are a bit of a drag & only give you24 frames to scan. When shooting B&W, I scan in Color Transparency mode, as I feel it gives beter depth and all the color casts from the film that I can manipulate as tonning.

More importantly, since I view my negs on a lightbox first. I have a good idea which frames I want to expend my energy on. That said, I always do a preview in Viewscan to get a "contact sheet" and the software allows me to enlarge each frame, make selections and change setting on the fly if I want a "custom" scan.

 

The scan quality is superb to my eye. What I what from the scan is the most information in a fairly neutral range for me to create the final image in Photoshop. Those that what an "out of box", easy solution get what they ask for; speed and generally high contrast images which bleed out important information and made very nice & acceptable prints.

 

I do all my Post Processing in LAB mode, as it gives me hundreds of more ways to remix the essential elements of the B&W spectrm of tones & contrast. Be sure to know what you are after before you make the plunge. Spped Kills. It kills the ability to spend essential time needed to muse over the image and help to plan what you want to express and to discover what's in there. Good Luck. Ben

 

Sorry for my mistake, brain drain. I have an Epson V700.

[Guest jimmy pro]

Interesting. Did he indicate why he doesn't just start with digital?

 

Considering the rest of his points, I to would love to hear his "explanation" of why he bothers to shoot film. Of course with an assistant doing all the post work, it's like saying he prefers riding a horse, and then sits in the saddle in a trailer while a hired hand pulls them around with a pickup.

[ericperlberg]

Considering the rest of his points, I to would love to hear his "explanation" of why he bothers to shoot film. Of course with an assistant doing all the post work, it's like saying he prefers riding a horse, and then sits in the saddle in a trailer while a hired hand pulls them around with a pickup.

 

I don't share your analysis or sentiments regarding pp. Many photographers of his calibre don't do their own pp or darkroom work if they work on film. It would be churlish to suggest DG accepts what some photoshop operator (or technician) decides to do with his images. People of DG's calibre are in total control of their images.

 

As for why he shoots film, It may well be that a man who started shooting Leicas professionally in the 1940s and who is 78+ years old doesn't feel compelled to switch from what he's done all his life to digital. We're all individuals. His work speaks for itself.

[Guest jimmy pro]

As for why he shoots film, It may well be that a man who started shooting Leicas professionally in the 1940s and who is 78+ years old

 

A very plausable explanation.

[gesper]

Based on his acceptance of digital post processing, my guess is he would use digital cameras if they produced better results for him. Maybe in his view the quality of scanned film (Medium Format on drum scanner perhaps?) is superior to what he sees from the sensors in the digital cameras he has used.

[sean_reid]

As for why he shoots film, It may well be that a man who started shooting Leicas professionally in the 1940s and who is 78+ years old doesn't feel compelled to switch from what he's done all his life to digital.

 

I think that's a perceptive point that may be close to the mark.

 

It's true that a scanner is, itself, a kind of digital camera but a digital camera is certainly a different kind of thing from a film camera. It's easy for me to understand how one might prefer to shoot with film and then have a skilled assistant scan the negs.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ron110n]

I think that's a perceptive point that may be close to the mark.

 

It's true that a scanner is, itself, a kind of digital camera but a digital camera is certainly a different kind of thing from a film camera. It's easy for me to understand how one might prefer to shoot with film and then have a skilled assistant scan the negs.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Of course, in the pre digital and photoshop years, remember we dodge durring burning or cut films and join them together as one to get a burning special effect.

Come to think of it, scanning is waaaaaay peice of cake than the old school method we did in High School.

 

Geez, I haven't use the word burn for a loooong time. Like let's burn some prints. I think I need to put my Omega B22 back in action. Better yet, I'll just hunt for a Saunders LPL at eBay. =)

 

-Ron

[Guest jimmy pro]

a digital camera is certainly a different kind of thing from a film camera.

 

Right, it uses a memory card you change every 200 shots instead of film you have to change every 36. You can see the shot immediately, with an exposure histogram, and re-shoot, edit, whatever. Most people think those are huge advantages. Aside from that my Canon 1Ds is nearly identical to the 1V I used to have. The M8 has it's crop factor, but you follow the framelines and forget about it. Guys who only shot neg film, perticularly C41, have a little learning curve on account've the narrower D.R. of digital, but those who shot slide film are right at home.

 

It's easy for me to understand how one might prefer to shoot with film and then have a skilled assistant scan the negs.

 

With all the responsability of getting from capture to print left over to someone else, what does it matter what the photog uses for capture? If he rathers spend the dough on film and processing instead of a digital camera, that's fine. If it's just so he can use his antique cameras, also fine. To each his own.