Anyone "gone film?" Let's hear your story.

[KM-25]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I sold my M8 ( reluctantly ) last week. I just could not shoot it along side of Kodachrome anymore, the swapping of IR filters on and off was getting to be a downer.

 

So now I have an M6TTL, M3 and MP-3 loaded with Kodachrome. Life is pure again......

[Guest DuquesneG]

Thanks, man... My decision was based on both look and workflow...

 

Cheers,

 

I have a question for you. In another thread you elaborated on the above:

 

I was spending way too much time trying to make my digital work look like film and decided to use film to begin with.

 

Even though I live in Florida, all my film is developed and scanned at my lab in L.A.

 

My question is, you are having your film scanned to digital. We all know that scanned film doesn't look like film printed through an enlarger on chemically-developed paper, unless it is treated by software. So if you are getting the "film look" it is because your lab is doing it. Would you not have been able to achieve the same end result for lesser cost if you continued to shoot digital and gave the PP over to someone else? In other words, it seems that the decisive factor in your newfound happiness isn't due to switching back to film, instead it's because you've given over PP to a lab rather than doing it yourself. No?

[Advertisement]

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

[ndjambrose]

I have a question for you.... we all know that scanned film doesn't look like film printed through an enlarger on chemically-developed paper, unless it is treated by software....

 

We don't all know that. In fact, for my money, a well-scanned negative printed with a high end process is indistinguishable from a silver wet print in terms of 'looking like film'. The element that makes a film print look and feel different is largely down to the character of the substrate, and a quality scan will always retain that character. The 'treatment by software' is the thing that's hard to do, and which various film emulators do to greater or lesser success. But a scanned negative doesn't need that kind of emulation; it's film by nature, not by emulation.

 

If you've taken film to any high street lab over the last 3 or 4 years you've always had a digital print made from a scan. Most retailers have converted to mini-labs, and there are not many pro labs left that still do wet printing. Even those pro labs that still have the wet process will usually give you a digital print unless you specifically ask for a hand print, and pay the premium that goes with it. Not many people think their prints no longer look like film.

[wilfredo]

I have a question for you. In another thread you elaborated on the above:

 

My question is, you are having your film scanned to digital. We all know that scanned film doesn't look like film printed through an enlarger on chemically-developed paper, unless it is treated by software. So if you are getting the "film look" it is because your lab is doing it. Would you not have been able to achieve the same end result for lesser cost if you continued to shoot digital and gave the PP over to someone else? In other words, it seems that the decisive factor in your newfound happiness isn't due to switching back to film, instead it's because you've given over PP to a lab rather than doing it yourself. No?

 

A digital print won't look 100% like a chemical print because it is a different media, however, I can still see the difference between a film shot and digital shot even if both are giclee printed. Film still retains a certain graininess and character and the resolution increases with a good scanner. My film giclee prints have better resolution than my darkroom prints.

 

 

That aside, I won't sell my digital gear in favor of film, but I find myself coming back to film more and more. Recently I picked up an M2 which I love, and now I'm looking to get a Canon 1V to use with my current Canon glass.

 

Cheers,

Wilfredo

Benitez-Rivera Photography

[semrich]

I decided on photography as a hobby two and a half years ago and got a D Lux-3, I liked it enough that I bought a R-D1 and some lenses because I wanted a a rangefinder and then got an M8. I learned a lot using digital so because I have the M lenses I got an MP as a back up.

 

Shooting digital I "chimp" to see if I got it, with film I take the picture lower the camera and walk away. Many times I know I got the shot but it is still a surprise when I develop the film.

 

Now I have some vintage MF folders, Xpan, a IIIf and a M2. So I'm shooting much more film and enjoying photography more with better results.

 

At this moment in time I shoot digital mainly for color but that may change because I've seen some good results from home developing color film and I am thinking about giving that a go.

[earleygallery]

I just processed a roll of B&W film, took about 15 mins all told from loading the reel to putting it on wash (running in the background now). Its barely longer than it takes to download a memory card into a new file on the PC.

 

OK it will take me a while to run it through the scanner later, but I always PP my digital shots too.

 

I had a look at the last few frames - as I always do - and there are some shots there that I completely forgot about. Always a nice surprise!

[sinwen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So do I understand correctly that you are going to sell some (all?) of your film Leica gear to get into a digital system? What are you switching to, or do you know yet?

 

I cannot buy if I didn't sell before, I always did like this and it also a way to keep your shelves in order.

So I put my R6 to sell with three lenses 35f2.8, 60f2.8 macro and 90f2.8. My best Leica pictures have been taken with this equipment, not the M.

But I know for a fact now that Leica won't come out with an affordable R digital, if they produce one at all ; it will be another 5K at least I am tired of this.

I may let go the M3 (fantastic shutter realease) but will keep the M6 because it is so.... so.... well we all know

 

As what to buy, I don't know yet, lenses are all big zoom zoom, bodies get the smallpox with so many buttons, the all thing weight as much as my Hassy, I would have love three first rate primes on a small handy FF. There is no such thing at the moment.

The smallest FF is the new 5D, but the fix focal lenses are rather hudge probably inherent to digital needs and their prices aren't less.

I could have kept my glass to fix on this 5D but I don't think it is a good idea, you get a clumsy setup with lenses which aren't made for digital.

That 's where I stand for now.

Ah if only Panasonic had made this G1 pocketable like the LX3 !!! They would have sold tons of it !

[MPJMP]

I cannot buy if I didn't sell before, I always did like this and it also a way to keep your shelves in order.

So I put my R6 to sell with three lenses 35f2.8, 60f2.8 macro and 90f2.8. My best Leica pictures have been taken with this equipment, not the M.

But I know for a fact now that Leica won't come out with an affordable R digital, if they produce one at all ; it will be another 5K at least I am tired of this.

I may let go the M3 (fantastic shutter realease) but will keep the M6 because it is so.... so.... well we all know

 

As what to buy, I don't know yet, lenses are all big zoom zoom, bodies get the smallpox with so many buttons, the all thing weight as much as my Hassy, I would have love three first rate primes on a small handy FF. There is no such thing at the moment.

The smallest FF is the new 5D, but the fix focal lenses are rather hudge probably inherent to digital needs and their prices aren't less.

I could have kept my glass to fix on this 5D but I don't think it is a good idea, you get a clumsy setup with lenses which aren't made for digital.

That 's where I stand for now.

Ah if only Panasonic had made this G1 pocketable like the LX3 !!! They would have sold tons of it !

 

I hear ya! I'd really love a smallish digicam that would accept my Leica glass and at least get me close to that "Leica look" with a digital file. There's talk over in the digital forum about the possibility of a Panasonic-made micro 4/3rds in M-mount. It's pure fantasy, but hey, what a fantasy!

 

The temptation to at least get something digital that's better than my $150 Canon P&S persists. Today I was all set to take the MP down to the botanical gardens with the family when my wife asked, "Can we take the digital (emphasis hers) camera? It's so much faster to send the pictures in e-mail." While I will always favor my MP, sometimes you have to cater to the demands of your "clients" and use a medium with more immediate gratification than film. And heck, the in-laws probably can't tell the difference, anyway.

[k_g_wolf ✝]

>> MPJMP

 

 

Let your mother in law enjoy the digital outcome, but don´t you take all those photographs for yourself ? Keep on with your filmproject, take your MP to the Botanical Garden next time. It´s worth it !

 

At least it´s so for myself. I take far too many photographs - 90% of them on film - and enjoy it a lot when friends complain: >>How did you do it ? I can never achieve so precise images with such wonderful backgrounds with my camera<<.

 

One or the other is using a LEICA now ...

 

 

 

Best

[Shootist]

Looking back at my old D200 pics, when enlarged to 100% they are not very sharp.

 

That is the reason I sold all my Nikon gear after getting a M8.

Also the 18-200 is not a very good lens, had one never liked it but kept it around for awhile then sold it before I sold the rest of the Nikon stuff.

Had 3 M3's which went away also as the M8 filled the bill for me at the time. I now have a CL, on which everything works, and have just gotten another M3.

Shooting film is fun at times, along with the whole developing thing, but if I'm really doing some photography I always take a M8 with me and maybe a film camera.

 

I normally only shot B&W with the film cameras but I have run some slide film through it.

 

YMMV. And that's fine.

[Shootist]

I sold my M8 ( reluctantly ) last week. I just could not shoot it along side of Kodachrome anymore, the swapping of IR filters on and off was getting to be a downer.

 

So now I have an M6TTL, M3 and MP-3 loaded with Kodachrome. Life is pure again......

 

You know that is more then funny. Just what are you going to do when there is no more Kodakchrome.

[earleygallery]

You know that is more then funny. Just what are you going to do when there is no more Kodakchrome.

 

That's like asking someone who buys a new car, 'but what are you going to do when all the oil runs out?!'

[Shootist]

That's like asking someone who buys a new car, 'but what are you going to do when all the oil runs out?!'

Not really.

[Guest DuquesneG]

a well-scanned negative printed with a high end process is indistinguishable from a silver wet print in terms of 'looking like film'.

 

I never said it can't be indistinguishable. I said it can't be indistinguishable without some PP trickery.

 

The element that makes a film print look and feel different is largely down to the character of the substrate, and a quality scan will always retain that character.

 

Again, any scan will capture the grain as well as the detail. If you don't want the look of digitized grain, then there has to be some PP tweaking.

 

But a scanned negative doesn't need that kind of emulation; it's film by nature, not by emulation.

 

Again, scanned film looks like scanned film. Not like digital capture, but not like optical printing. Not unless there is some PP --to use your word, emulation.

 

If you've taken film to any high street lab over the last 3 or 4 years you've always had a digital print made from a scan. Most retailers have converted to mini-labs, and there are not many pro labs left that still do wet printing. Even those pro labs that still have the wet process will usually give you a digital print unless you specifically ask for a hand print, and pay the premium that goes with it.

 

Um, yesterday as I fell off the turnip truck there was a billboard that mentioned that

 

 

Not many people think their prints no longer look like film.

 

How many millions of people have you asked?

[ndjambrose]

Hmm. I'm struggling here. I really don't know why you keep insisting that 'PP trickery' is needed. A print made from scanned film looks like a print made from projected film in terms of film character. End of story. If you've never experienced that then there's something wrong with your scanning or your printing.

[stunsworth]

Fuji Frontier labs print using 'normal' colour photographic paper. The negatives are scanned at a fairly low resolution and the photographic paper is exposed by laser using the digital file from the scanned negatives. The paper is then developed using a wet process. Or at least that was the way it worked the last time I dug around on this subject.

 

So the question is do those prints look like 'real' prints or not? No cheating with a magnifying glass!

[35photo]

I've always used the Hybrid approach shooting film whether its the M6, Hassy, Mamyia, Holga, Nikon N90 scanning it and doing some nice inkjet prints. I have a D200 use it from time to time been playing around with Lightroom 2 which has been a really nice tool in the digital processing realm. My D200 images have anyway been sharp. Using Lightroom 2 has given my D200 images a new life in terms getting more out of the file. This is why I love photography there are just so many different tools one can use to express yourself, and what it comes down it it just fun.....

 

If you want to see some of my work check out

 

35 Photo Splash

 

Marko

[wattsy]

You know that is more then funny. Just what are you going to do when there is no more Kodakchrome.

 

Why is it funny?

[35photo]

Hmm. I'm struggling here. I really don't know why you keep insisting that 'PP trickery' is needed. A print made from scanned film looks like a print made from projected film in terms of film character. End of story. If you've never experienced that then there's something wrong with your scanning or your printing.

 

Totally agree with you!

 

PS: Nice work on your 36photos.org site

 

Marko

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest DuquesneG]

Hmm. I'm struggling here. I really don't know why you keep insisting that 'PP trickery' is needed. A print made from scanned film looks like a print made from projected film in terms of film character. End of story. If you've never experienced that then there's something wrong with your scanning or your printing.

 

But I have experienced it. I never said anywhere that I did not. The reason I have experienced it is because I found a professional place to do the scans and printing, who knew how to tweak the files in PP to minimize the digitized-look of the film grain. Maybe had I learned how I could have done it myself, from scans from my Minolta 5400dpi desktop scanner. That part I don't know because I never tried. The expense of professional scanning was the last straw that made me go completely over to digital. So, again, I never said a scanned slide or negative can't look like an enlarger print, what I said was it takes some doing in PP. That is the end of the story.