Shoot film/develop digitally-- workflow

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

Jimmy,

 

Have you worked with assistants? There are many photographers who direct and oversee scanning and PS work done by assistants. And there have always been photographers who have others develop their film and, very often, make their prints. In fact, earlier in my life I was an exhibition printer for other photographers. How one gets to an end result is very much up to him or her and there are no rules about that. A good assistant learns what it is that the photographer needs, as an end result, and facilitates that. It's a collaborative effort that is guided by the picture the photographer wants to see in the end.

 

I prefer digital capture and I do my own post work. But I would never assume that everyone else should work as I do. People should use whatever methods work for them and some photographers have no desire to ever use a digital camera. I think its important that photographer "A" remember that the cameras, workflows, methods, etc. that best suit *him* aren't necessarily best for everyone.

 

This could easily drift into one of those tiring film vs. digital debates. I myself have not used film for several years but some of the best photographers I know are still using only film cameras. They like them and are familiar with them.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Advertisement]

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

[gesper]

Sean, setting aside the cost and time involved with film, what is your view of the image quality of current scanner sensors compared with camera sensors, taking into account that the scanner can take multiple scans of the same image to imrpove noise levels, dynamic range, etc.?

 

Thanks,

 

George

[ericperlberg]

snip... There are many photographers who direct and oversee scanning and PS work done by assistants. And there have always been photographers who have others develop their film and, very often, make their prints. snip

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

FWIW, the use of assistants runs through all the arts. Richard Serra doesn't cut his own steel and work the cranes to erect his sculptures but he conceives of them and directs their construction to his desires.. Matisse, Michaelangelo, Di Vinci come to mind as examples of the many master painters who had workshops where various parts of their paintings were painted by apprentices, journeymen, craftsmen, students, etc. The masters conceive of and direct the work and contributed their masterly strokes where their skills were unmatchable and leave the grunt work to others. Great architects like Frank Gerry, Santiago Calatrava, Herzog & de Meuron etc don't build the buildings they design. etc. in fact, they pass off a lot of the technical design work to their underlings. But they're still the masterminds. Mahler, Beethoven, Hayden, etc composed and conducted music but they didn't actually play it, they needed others for that. etc.

[Dan States]

I have given up on wet printing my negatives now that I have learned how to create black and white hybrid prints that exceed my old wet prints. In the past I could not achieve acceptable tonal range by scanning but found that this was primarily due to my scanner software combined with a film processing routine that was wet print driven. (Too much contrast)

 

You can make fantastic hybrid prints if you have a really good printer, a decent filim scanner and negatives that are not overcooked.

 

I now shorten development times by 10-15% to keep a slightly flat negative that the scanner can handle. If you are not a slob with your negatives and scan them right after drying you should not have a problem with dust.

 

In the end I've pretty much dropped my digital workflow to go back to film. The prints I'm making just look better to me, with more emotional impact and a level of texture and life that my digital images tend to miss.

 

If you have a chance you should all pick up the latest LFI that has black and white prints from the 50-60's and current digital images of South Africa by Jurgen Schadeberg. While the guy remains a great photographer, I'm sorry to say the new images look pretty awful compared to what was created on film a half century ago.

 

Best wishes

 

Dan

 

"Everything is boring when you don't understand it"

[Guest stnami]

........ for some nostalgia wins out ..........

[sean_reid]

........ for some nostalgia wins out ..........

 

Or simply familiarity...People sometimes do their best work using the tools they're comfortable with.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sean, setting aside the cost and time involved with film, what is your view of the image quality of current scanner sensors compared with camera sensors, taking into account that the scanner can take multiple scans of the same image to imrpove noise levels, dynamic range, etc.?

 

Thanks,

 

George

 

Hi George,

 

To answer that, one would have do very extensive comparative testing and I certainly have not done that. Anecdotally I can say this...

 

- Though I worked intensively with film for about 20 years, I'm comfortable with digital cameras and prefer them. But I don't assume everyone else feels the same or should.

 

- The only times I scan film now are when I'm dealing with older work.

 

- Once Canon introduced the 1Ds, I had what I needed to move away from film (save for the DRF that I waited years for). Once the R-D1 and M8 were introduced, I really had what I needed.

 

The pursuit of ultimate technical quality is often a red herring. One can get technically high quality results from film/development/chemical printing, film/scanning/digital printing or digital capture/digital printing. There will always be differences in the final results that come from each of these processes but, at this point, all three processes have the potential to deliver the goods. Digital capture was not mature a few years back and so the quality debates about film vs. digital were useful. Now, I think any professional who knows how to use either medium realizes that either can do the trick.

 

Lastly, there are still some photographers who have little to no interest in computers - and digital photography is computer intensive. Heck, the digital camera is itself largely a computer. So they may choose to stay with film in part because they have no desire to embrace the computer (in hand or on desk).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

I have given up on wet printing my negatives now that I have learned how to create black and white hybrid prints that exceed my old wet prints. In the past I could not achieve acceptable tonal range by scanning but found that this was primarily due to my scanner software combined with a film processing routine that was wet print driven. (Too much contrast)

 

I think that last comment is a great point and reminder. One has a lot more to work from if scanning a lower contrast, long-scale, negative. I always printed from that same kind of negative (ie: Tri-X rated at ISO 250 to 320 developed for 8.5 mins in D76 mixed 1:1 at 68 degrees (F) with agitation of 5 seconds every 30). That kind of negative always gave me more to work with when I was making chemical prints (working with all three negative formats).

 

So now when I'm scanning old work, it turns out that those same negatives I made for cold-light printing are also good technical sources for scanning.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Sean, setting aside the cost and time involved with film, what is your view of the image quality of current scanner sensors compared with camera sensors, taking into account that the scanner can take multiple scans of the same image to imrpove noise levels, dynamic range, etc.?

 

Thanks,

 

George

 

Thinking further, I can say this (and I'm sure others will also weigh in)... there is nothing about the RAW files I'm getting from the digital cameras I now use that has ever made me, even for a moment, consider shooting film instead. Those cameras are primarily M8s and full-frame Canon DSLRs. I think I'd feel the same way about the Nikon D3 but Nikon is taking forever to get me a review sample so I can't yet say that for sure.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Guest stnami]

I bought a bunch of P&S's and 70's baby rangefinder types (Oly XA etc) film cameras, they are loaded with various film types.....neg/slide colour/B&W and iso ratings. I take them out from time to time with the Epson shoot a few frames eventually the rolls are finished, takes a month or two

 

................ just got back 8 rolls, interesting ideas spring from the images as they are taken over a longer time span. Some will be scanned others remain as ideas ....scanning pushed 1600iso is always a heap of fun:rolleyes:

 

yea it can all work for you ........the better than this or that caper is pointless

[Dan States]

I think that last comment is a great point and reminder. One has a lot more to work from if scanning a lower contrast, long-scale, negative. I always printed from that same kind of negative (ie: Tri-X rated at ISO 250 to 320 developed for 8.5 mins in D76 mixed 1:1 at 68 degrees (F) with agitation of 5 seconds every 30). That kind of negative always gave me more to work with when I was making chemical prints (working with all three negative formats).

 

So now when I'm scanning old work, it turns out that those same negatives I made for cold-light printing are also good technical sources for scanning.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

One of the finest "pull" films I have tried is the new Tmax 400. I shoot it as low as 100 asa and it remains very sharp with even finer grain when processed in DDX. The shadow detail is a blessing to work with on a scanner and the highlights are well controlled when I pull back time about 25%.

 

In combination with digital image controls in Photoshop I get an amazing amount of dynamic range. I had not touched a roll of film in more than a year and frankly forgot how much latitude there is in film. Not a better or worse speech, just what I am into right now.

 

I look forward to digital cameras of the future that will have the kind of range we see in black and white negative high speed films. Could care less if I ever see the "unsharp mask" button again as digital sharpening is the "poo in the pool" of most digital prints I've seen.

[Guest Austerby]

Personally, spending most of my working time looking at a computer screen I enjoy the traditional darkroom processes much more than using Photoshop. I'm sure I could get better results, but I've a long way to go before I get the most out of my primitive darkroom so I gain quite sufficient personal satisfaction from using film and tradiitonal B&W. BTW I do use a dSLR and dP&S and Photoshop - it's just that mechanical cameras and traditional processing give me a satisfactory alternative.

[pierovitch]

I would like to put a vote in for all methods. I have scanned silver prints for a digital image.

scanned slides and negatives with a coolscan, done a digital slide copy with a digital slr to extract shadow detail from kodachromes and used HDR when one exposure did not have the best dynamic range. They all work and scanning technical pan film gives very high resolution images from the M3. Experiment play and enjoy the discovery of what can be done to get the image you want. All art is a transform of some sort and defining a single best practice is counter productive.

[Guest stnami]

.

.

.

.

digital > film>print >digital

.

.

 

 

 

 

 

[sean_reid]

Personally, spending most of my working time looking at a computer screen I enjoy the traditional darkroom processes much more than using Photoshop.

 

I can see that happening. When I first discovered Photoshop it was a revelation for me to be "printing" in ordinary light and without the chemicals. Still, though my current monitor is very easy on the eyes, I make a point of getting away from the computer whenever I can. I imagine a lot of us here spend a great deal of time looking at monitors.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[dalippe]

I've pretty much stayed out of this thread since starting it as I was enjoying reading everyone's replies and didn't have much to add myself for obvious reasons. If anyone cares, my take away is that for my purposes, the real advantage of shooting B&W film and then scanning would be the increased dynamic range, but that it probably isn't worth the time it would take given my time constraints. On the off chance that film is still available and the dynamic range of digital still hasn't caught up, this might be a nice project once I retire

 

Thanks to everyone for your replies!

 

David