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

[ndjambrose]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...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.

 

Not quite the end of the story. Earlier you said: "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."

 

That's the bit that doesn't make any sense, and the bit that you're carefully ignoring in your replies. I've done a lot of scanning and a lot of printing, and have no recollection of ever doing "PP trickery" or making sure my scans were further "treated by software". Straight out the scanner, a quick curves adjustment to set the contrast (the digital equivalent of multigrade printing), a once over to remove dust spots, and then straight onto fine art paper.

 

From what you're describing I can only assume that your own scans were done with a technique that made the grain more obvious than you liked, and that a lab scan done with a different technique didn't.

 

There's no magical PP trickery needed. Just an understanding of how to scan and how to optimise a file for different print output, and careful development technique to produce an optimal negative. There is no requirement for an additional post-production process in order to make a scanned negative look like film. Because -- believe it or not -- it already is film.

[Ludwig Gretch]

Here's my two pennorth, for what it's worth - the Durst enlarger, two EL Nikkors, and all the trimmings, have sat unused on the bench in my garden workshop cum darkroom for the last four years or so,- they are now about to have a new lease of life!. Admittedly my scanner and printer are not 'high end', but I am quite happy with my colour prints, from negs and digital files, and even got to thinking my mono stuff was reasonable. Recently I saw some framed portraits of kids, that I shot for an aquaintance, about twenty years ago, when I ran into him again. The pictures were from a Rollieflex (alas, long gone), and printed on Agfa 'Record Rapid', and sellenium toned. I went home and started looking long and hard at my inkjets, and dug out some old 'wet' prints for comparison, - no contest! -talk about pale imitations!!! .....now wheres the dusters for that Durst!...even if there's no more Record Rapid,- or Portriga.

 

Cheers, Dave.

[Advertisement]

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

[JBA]

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.

 

My lab scans all my photos and I have no idea what process they use, but I've certainly never needed to tweak anything in post-processing to achieve natural film grain.

 

Your statements on the matter are a bit baffling and beside the point of the thread anyhow.

[Guest stnami]

........... this thread is gone to the dogs................ by the way shootist what happens when you run out of words?.......................

[MPJMP]

.this thread is gone to the dogs................

 

I agree. Anyone else switched from digital to film capture, or at least come back to shooting film along side digital?

 

I see that Kodak just came out with a new high-saturation color print film. It builds my confidence to see new films being released. I suspect that in the near future there will be a very limited number of films available, but they will all be outstanding since they will be marketed specifically toward photography enthusiasts who are very discriminating, the clueless masses having long turned to digital point and shoots for their vacation snaps. I mean, somebody's gotta put all those old Leicas and Nikon Fs to good use, right? They're too special to just rust away in some land fill.

 

For you guys that are having your labs scan your film at the time of processing, how much are they typically charging? My local lab wants about US$15 to scan a roll of 36 exposures (not including the processing, which usually runs another $5). At that rate, I could see how digital might seem much more economical over the long term. Unless there is a better deal out there waiting to be had, I think I'll stick to sorting out the good from the bad on my light table and then scanning with the Coolscan V.

 

And for something only marginally on topic, here's an interesting story highlighting the whole film vs. digital issue: I know a guy who collects vintage Zeiss Ikon folding cameras. He doesn't really use them, just collects old cameras. I borrowed one that seemed to be in pretty good shape, loaded it up with some Ilford B&W 120 roll film, and started walking the streets looking for something worthy to point this 70 year old box at. There was some type of political demonstration taking place on the steps of the courthouse and the local media was there to cover it with their various Nikon and Canon digital SLRs blazing away at 6 frames per second. I jumped right in as though I were also one of them, only armed with the ancient looking Ikon. After every click of the shutter I would carefully advance the film to the next frame, cock the shutter, check my focus in the rangefinder, compose, and then take another exposure. These news photographers literally stopped what they were doing and began staring at me in wonderous disbelief- like I had stepped out of a time machine from 1938. One guy asked me what kind of camera it was. He seemed genuinely impressed with it.

 

My pictures turned out pretty good, too.

[john51]

I find I must agree with Ned, Digital just doesn't even come close when compared to properly processed Black & White film, or Kodachrome 64, the colours are just so rich and gorgeous.

 

Even my lowly Leica Mini ll turns out fantastic results with Kodachrome 64, I only hope I can continue to obtain supplies in the coming years.........Kind Regards, John.

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!

[k_g_wolf ✝]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

>> John

 

 

 

That´s a wonderful photograph, thx. for sharing.

 

 

 

Best

[tbarker13]

I'm in the midst of selling my M8 and going from an all-digital work flow to a mix of film and digital.

I really enjoyed the M8 over the past (nearly) two years.

I've picked up a used Epson R-D1 to go along with an M4 that I really want to spend more time with.

I have many reasons for doing this. Two stand out in my mind.

1) My love affair with the M8 was sorely tested earlier this year on a river in North Carolina, where the camera just locked up and stopped working. That camera was recently replaced by Leica, but my confidence - right or wrong - was shaken.

2) Took my M4 out a couple month ago to shoot some Tri-X. I really don't believe that one is better than the other. But I realized that at least for me, film still offers something that digital doesn't - in terms of the final product. Maybe it was the grain - something I've always loved.

 

It's not the greatest image, but I liked it. (shot with an old 35/3.5 summaron)

 

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!

[MPJMP]

2) Took my M4 out a couple month ago to shoot some Tri-X. I really don't believe that one is better than the other. But I realized that at least for me, film still offers something that digital doesn't - in terms of the final product. Maybe it was the grain - something I've always loved...

 

[ATTACH]108786[/ATTACH]

 

Yep.

 

People keep telling me that they can simulate the look of film with various Photoshop plug-ins and post processing. But why simulate something when you can have the real thing?

 

The more I think about it, the more I come to the realization that my hobby isn't "photography" so much as it is "making photographs with a 35mm manual Leica rangefinder."

[maxspbr]

 

And for something only marginally on topic, here's an interesting story highlighting the whole film vs. digital issue: I know a guy who collects vintage Zeiss Ikon folding cameras. He doesn't really use them, just collects old cameras. I borrowed one that seemed to be in pretty good shape, loaded it up with some Ilford B&W 120 roll film, and started walking the streets looking for something worthy to point this 70 year old box at. There was some type of political demonstration taking place on the steps of the courthouse and the local media was there to cover it with their various Nikon and Canon digital SLRs blazing away at 6 frames per second. I jumped right in as though I were also one of them, only armed with the ancient looking Ikon. After every click of the shutter I would carefully advance the film to the next frame, cock the shutter, check my focus in the rangefinder, compose, and then take another exposure. These news photographers literally stopped what they were doing and began staring at me in wonderous disbelief- like I had stepped out of a time machine from 1938. One guy asked me what kind of camera it was. He seemed genuinely impressed with it.

 

My pictures turned out pretty good, too.

 

This happens a lot with me! Usually with Zeiss Ikon cameras... (Pro phots seems to know and respect Leica, just think it is so much expensive. Not all true, as I use IIIf and IIc). Folding cameras just atract more attention (I use Zeiss Super Ikonta 6x6 and Voigtlander Bessa 6x9). A few times people tought that Zeiss Contax II (from 1937) is a digital camera, so it doesn't atract so much atention.

 

The usual points the news phots want to know: a) why you are without flash (they always use flash, even in midday to "fill in"); how your camera is so little (even the Super Ikonta 6x9 is smaller than any DSLR).

 

Regards,

 

Martin

[andym911]

Certainly in my circle of friends there are several like me who have moved back or, who are getting back into film.

The common reason has little to do with technicalities, far more to do with a sense of contribution and skill in creating the final product.

As we are all hobbyists what we are looking for is reward, accomplishment, participation in creating the image and final print.We want to enjoy our photography and be proud of what we produce.

Several of us agree that the all important sense of accomplishment and pleasure is far stronger when we use film cameras, possibly develop the films ourselves and scan and print the images.

It has nothing to do with being anti digital (we all own digital cameras)..it has far more to do with the experience of shooting film, starting from loading the camera to making sure that your inversions are consistent:D finishing with drying your negs and holding em up to the light. ...aaaaahhhhh:eek:

 

each to their own...but film is good

 

andy

[KM-25]

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

 

Shoot black and white, there will be plenty of that, I have a lot of it.

 

We have today, shoot hundreds of rolls of Kodachrome all over the world like I am right now is what you do when you have had a great career thus far and want to reward your self and make a statement that will always go well beyond any digital will do, ever.

 

The fact that Kodachrome will soon disappear is what fuels the passion, the drive to excel with it.

 

That is what a visionary does, sees opportunity in everything and has the heart to make it happen..

[ddp]

I agree. Anyone else switched from digital to film capture, or at least come back to shooting film along side digital?

 

I've been doing it for some time. Everything I shoot for my day job (in house corporate work) has been digital since May of 2000. Every pro-level body Nikon has made, we have used with the exeption of the D2Hs.

 

For much of my personal work - and I have a few private clients as well that ask for it - it's still film.

 

I've said this before....Leica lenses look different on film. The cropped sensor of the M8 changes certain characteristics. I like the way my 'Luxes look on film...especially Mr. Nocti. I personally prefer the texture and subtleties of film in certain cases. Digital has it's place obviously, but sometimes it's nice to see what Tri-X looks like. Or K64 or Velvia.

[tgray]

I started off with a Canon digital rebel. I soon moved to a 1V and an M6, and now have an M7. The only time I use the DSLR now is to take pictures of stuff I want to sell on the internet. Been essentially all film for the last 2 years. Mostly B&W. I'm not a pro.

[andybarton]

It would be interesting to ask the same question on a Canon forum (if one were to exist)

[MPJMP]

It would be interesting to ask the same question on a Canon forum (if one were to exist)

 

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I don't think most die-hard Canon or Nikon users would see the benefit of using film vs. digital capture the same way that Leica users would. This seems to be reflected in the massive depreciation of used Nikon and Canon film cameras over the past couple of years. A Nikon F100 that sold for $1000 in 1999 sells now on eBay for a paltry 1/3rd of its original price, while a Leica M4 from the late 60's still holds its value.

[MPJMP]

For much of my personal work - and I have a few private clients as well that ask for it - it's still film.

 

ddp,

 

Under what kind of circumstances do you find that commercial clients specifically request that you use film? Do they also prefer the look, or do they prefer having negatives/positives instead of a CD with files on it?

[Guest stnami]

The only client who insists on film for certain projects is me

[ddp]

ddp,

 

Under what kind of circumstances do you find that commercial clients specifically request that you use film? Do they also prefer the look, or do they prefer having negatives/positives instead of a CD with files on it?

 

Any film I'm shooting is for clients looking for portraiture for the most part. They prefer the look of film for the most part - and they typically own digital cameras, but simply want a certain look. I usually provide them with the negatives and a CD with scans from the lab. Keep in mind, this is a small amount of people.

For my personal projects - automotive detail work or shallow DOF stuff, I almost always shoot film. I'm fully aware of what a Nikkor 85/1.4 or 135/2 can give me in a digital file....but there is something else that the Nocti or 75/1.4 can give me on Portra or chromes.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[NB23]

Shoot black and white, there will be plenty of that, I have a lot of it.

 

We have today, shoot hundreds of rolls of Kodachrome all over the world like I am right now is what you do when you have had a great career thus far and want to reward your self and make a statement that will always go well beyond any digital will do, ever.

 

The fact that Kodachrome will soon disappear is what fuels the passion, the drive to excel with it.

 

That is what a visionary does, sees opportunity in everything and has the heart to make it happen..

 

 

Please. Can you please stop being so full of it?