Analog workflow in a digital world...what are YOU doing?

[Jason Hopkins]

You know...in this day and age...digital workflow is talked about constantly. Seems most books you buy hit upon it, seems every forum you read has discussions about it…But what about us analog dinosaurs? (for the record I use the term 'analog dinosaur' with the kindest and highest possible regards and intents. I am an analog dinosaur...and DAMN proud of it). Any of us could find reams of information about digital work flow. Conversely we can easily dig up all kinds of information on analog processing of film/prints. Why are the two often viewed as mutually exclusive?

I realize the answer is likely something along the lines of, “not many folks are shooting film…so why bother?” Sadly this is of course true.

I am not going to take this in the “Film Vs. Digital” direction here…I think we have ALL seen that FAR too much. Still, something needs to be said for WHY do we still shoot film. I can’t speak for anyone else but I will lay out a few.

Film has a HUGE dynamic range compared to even the most advanced ($) digitals on the planet. Yes, that 99cent per roll of Wal-Mart film has upwards of 14 stops of dynamic range compared to 5 stops on the highest end MF digital backs. Film can produce BILLIONS of times more colors than any digital capture device known to man. Film has a HUGE edge on resolution over digital. For example one of my 120 negatives scanned at 1200 DPI works out to roughly 120ish MP. There is no digital capture device currently available that can touch this….least nothing I can afford without selling EVERYTHING I own. =) Then there are the other things with film. Having a tangible object in my hand after all the junk we go through say shooting a landscape is just nice. The whole process of mixing chemicals, rolling the film up, to me is almost as fun as making the photographs. And still…to this day…when I am developing a print I STILL often have my breath catch in my throat when I see that image coming into focus as the print sits in the developer.

This isn’t to say digital doesn’t have its advantages. Take Sports for example, your nuts if you shoot sports in film. Modeling work is much the same, for the most part the speed, flexibility and portability makes digital a shoe in for MOST of this stuff. Weddings? Forget about it…only a glutton for punishment shoots the modern editorial wedding on film. I will admit it, when Nikon releases the d300…I will be in line. I already have the money saved!!

But that leaves us ‘other’ subjects. Mainly I am referring to art photography. I think my stuff fits in this realm, though I am very hesitant to call any photograph I make ‘art’. Maybe I am just not confident enough in my work. All I know is sometimes I make photographs that I think are good…and sometimes…people pay me for them. I think that’s pretty cool.

When you introduce the ‘sometimes people pay me for prints’ part that’s where I get REAL particular. I am flattered when someone wants to purchase a copy of a photograph I have made. That’s a whole different level of gratification. Having exhibited, won awards etc…for me…when someone says “I’ll take it” and forks over the dough that’s a different level to me. And no…its NOT about the money. Its all in the fact that someone is willing to give up their hard earned cash for something I created that validates and removes all doubt about whether they like it or not. At least for me I know…I don’t buy prints I like…I buy prints I love. That’s very gratifying to be the photographer in this exchange. =) However, with that commitment on the buyers part I insist on giving them a quality product. I want the absolute best reproduction. It MUST be ‘archival’ quality, it must last. I want the finest resolution I can provide. I want plainly the best piece of art (yes I cringed as I wrote that) I can offer and I absolutely will not simply accept a process as ‘good enough’. I always work to improve and enhance that process.

The best results I can get (shooting landscapes, architecture, and some limited model based figure studies and concept shots) start with film. I will admit if I had more hair they would be primarily 4x5 negatives…but simply put I am too lazy to tote that monster on hikes and such. As a result most of this work is 120 based.

From the 120 negative I scan the images in. Currently I am using a Canon 9950F. Its good and I am not displeased with it, especially after I pitched the default software and started using VueScan. Still, after the D300 I AM going to buy a CoolScan 9000. The ability to use ICE on 120 color slides and the resulting digital files…well they are the next best thing to drum scanning.

Once the image is digital I do work on my images in Photoshop. I really don’t manipulate the images overly. I will dodge/burn, adjust contrast colors and sharpen. I will ALWAYS fix dust spots (I HATE dust). When shooting models I do touch up faces/skin but I work very hard to keep skin texture and such in the images. I am working on a series of figure work that does have more extensive Photoshop work but that is the exception rather than the rule.

Once the image is fixed I output the file and make it into a digital negative. While I would be happy to address specific questions about this process, I don’t intend to outline it in its entirety as it would take a book length post to cover…AND…someone has already written the actual book …you can see it here:
http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Negati...4466131&sr=8-1

From here I am back to analog processes. Working in this fashion I am always doing contact printing. Up to 16X20 at home. If I have to go larger I have to send it out. I work primarily in B&W and use primarily silver gelatin prints though I have a few plat prints on hand as well. =)

The point of all this, and I DO apologize for the length of this post, but the point is I use analog AND digital processes. I start in analog, tweak in digital and finish in analog. To me, this process produces the absolute best results, that I can afford. =) I will admit that this process is cumbersome, and if you are not focused on Fine Art Prints as an end result its likely drastic overkill. Some true analog guys will have a problem with the digital manipulations, sorry about that. The only thing I will say in my defense is that I HONESTLY believe guys like Ansel would be using similar process at the present time were they alive to share in the technology we have available to us. I respect anyone that works with any camera and produces creative photographs and enjoys them and the process of making them.

So…with all that hot air let loose. What do YOU do? Whats your workflow with film? Why do you do it that way? Lastly, if you actually read all that…I don’t know whether to thank you or apologize…so…how about both. Thank you AND I am sorry for the length. =)

[Xia_Ke]

I don't think it matters whether one shoots digital or analog. From what I can see, both have there ups and downs which pretty much makes it a personal preference thing. Personally I like shooting film. For me, I made the swap because I love B&W and just never felt I could quite capture it like film could, though a good part of that could just be my Photoshop abilities. For the time being, I do all image capture on film and then edit in Lightroom/Photoshop and send to print. When I get some sort of darkroom going, I plan on being fully analog. The only digital work I will do is if I want to share a print online, I will probably scan the negative and edit it to match the print. My main reason is I just love the whole process. I feel much more involved in the whole process with film and I find it much more personally rewarding. I've been told I am an old soul too, so maybe part of it is just the feeling of nostalgia when working with film.

Another argument I know that is made for film is archival reasons. You know film will be good in 100, provided it was developed/fixed properly, but who's to say that the technology will still be around in 20 or even 10 years to still read those cd's you back everything up to.

Like I said though, I firmly believe that there isn't one method that is better than the other. Both have their trade-offs. It's up to the photographer to find what works best for them and make the most of it.

Aaron

[another view]

Like I said though, I firmly believe that there isn't one method that is better than the other. Both have their trade-offs. It's up to the photographer to find what works best for them and make the most of it.

Agreed. Great post, Jason - welcome to the site! Looking forward to reading more about how you do everything. I've done some b&w developing and scanning but that's about it, and have been interested in getting back into it.

[Jason Hopkins]

Agreed. Great post, Jason - welcome to the site! Looking forward to reading more about how you do everything. I've done some b&w developing and scanning but that's about it, and have been interested in getting back into it.

Thanks...good to be on the site!

Like both of you...the reason I wrote that is truly to hear how everyone else is working with film. I have a process that works...doesnt mean it cant be improved! =) I prefer film...but if it captures an image, I am all for it! =)

[photophorous]

Hi Jason,

I agree. Good idea for a thread.

I started developing B&W film about two years ago, and I rented a darkroom for about 9 months. Then I stopped and did the digital thing for a while because it was expensive and time consuming to go across town to the darkroom, but I eventually came back to film. Now I develop in my kitchen and scan the negatives. I was using a low-end flat bed for a while, so I never printed anything. But, I recently upgraded to a Coolscan V, so I will be making prints again soon. One day I'll get around to scanning one of the negatives I printed in the darkroom, so I can compare wet print vs digital print. Not to say one is worse or better, but if the darkroom prints jump out enough, I'll put my house on the market so I can buy one in the suburbs and build a dark room. Okay...that's not really true. But, I do hope to have a real darkroom one day when I move into a house that has room for it.

I shoot color for specific things, like landscapes, and I'm learning to scan those slides too.

Paul

[Greg McCary]

Not to get into a film vs. digital debate, My film workflow is basically the same as digital. I usally adjust exposure, highlights ect in Lightroom and then use PS 7 to clone out distractions, level and crop to what ever size print I am aiming for. I am not sure I will ever develope my own prints, I am addicted to the clone tool and really like having the option of removing powerlines ect. I still shoot film because I love it.

[gahspidy]

Great forum and topic. Welcome to the site Jason. your post was enjoyable to read.
when i started in photography in 2004, I began using a Canon Elan and scanning the negatives with a Coolscan V. It was alot of fun, especially seeing the images come up on the screen as they scanned. I shot mostly negative print film as i liked the latitude it gave me for adjustments in Photoshop. The thing I did not like about negative film was the grain and noise even with the finest negative film. (I found Kodak 100UC, and Fuji Reala 100 to be some of the finest negative film)
I would agree that my workflow then is similiar to my digital capture workflow now, except one less process. . .scanning.
As far as resolution goes, the scans from the Coolscan V were much higher res than that of my Digital Rebel XTi. However, because of the grain and noise included with the scanning of film, I find that I could not enlarge my photos as much as I could with the XTi.
Digital images from a quality D-SLR can be enlarged much more than that of 35mm negative film because of the lack of noise and grain, and also because whatever noise there might be in a digital capture file it is much easier to remove effectively than that of scanned film. I have devoted a section of my website to this issue for comparison.
I agree with much of what you say in your post and look forward to seeing some more of your work.

[deckcadet]

I have been looking at a coolscan myself. Currently I am reliant on drugstore or wolf camera photo CDs if I want to post my photos online or do light manipulation.
I find I am less inclined to do any post processing aside from sharpening on my film shots, partly out of artistic choice, though the inability of those low grade scans to hold up well contributes.

[Jason Hopkins]

Not to get into a film vs. digital debate, My film workflow is basically the same as digital. I usally adjust exposure, highlights ect in Lightroom and then use PS 7 to clone out distractions, level and crop to what ever size print I am aiming for. I am not sure I will ever develope my own prints, I am addicted to the clone tool and really like having the option of removing powerlines ect. I still shoot film because I love it.

Thing is...you CAN make prints in any analog process AND use cloning (or any other photoshop process/adjustment). Thats what I do. =) Click on that link in my first post...

I prefer a contact print developed in analog. There is just something about a contact print that stands out...they sparkle like jewels. Sorry if thats corny...but they really are special. I have been experimenting lately with LARGE Platnium prints...biggest to date is 20"X30". They are scary good.

[mtbbrian]

Thing is...you CAN make prints in any analog process AND use cloning (or any other photoshop process/adjustment). Thats what I do. =) Click on that link in my first post...

I prefer a contact print developed in analog. There is just something about a contact print that stands out...they sparkle like jewels. Sorry if thats corny...but they really are special. I have been experimenting lately with LARGE Platnium prints...biggest to date is 20"X30". They are scary good.

I know it has been mentioned on PR.com before, but, Durst is making an enlarger that morphs the two mediums. Call it a "digital enlarger" if you will.
It works just like a traditional enlarger in every aspect, other than it projects a digital file and has a computer attached to it.
Brian

[another view]

Digital images from a quality D-SLR can be enlarged much more than that of 35mm negative film because of the lack of noise and grain, and also because whatever noise there might be in a digital capture file it is much easier to remove effectively than that of scanned film.

I have to agree based on my experience. My film scanner isn't the greatest and I'm not Scott Kelby when it comes to Photoshop - but with properly exposed Provia 100F 35mm slides I felt like I was almost pushing my luck with an 8x10 print. With even a 6mp DSLR I can go to 16x24 very nicely.

I don't think anyone wants to see yet another film vs. digital debate - especially not here - but does anyone have any comment on how to overcome that? Possibly a better scanner and scanning software?

Jason, I know what you're saying about contact prints. I was lucky enough to catch the travelling Weston exhibit in Milwaukee a couple of years ago. Amazing 8x10 contact prints!

[Jason Hopkins]

I have to agree based on my experience. My film scanner isn't the greatest and I'm not Scott Kelby when it comes to Photoshop - but with properly exposed Provia 100F 35mm slides I felt like I was almost pushing my luck with an 8x10 print. With even a 6mp DSLR I can go to 16x24 very nicely.

I don't think anyone wants to see yet another film vs. digital debate - especially not here - but does anyone have any comment on how to overcome that? Possibly a better scanner and scanning software?

Jason, I know what you're saying about contact prints. I was lucky enough to catch the travelling Weston exhibit in Milwaukee a couple of years ago. Amazing 8x10 contact prints!

Just to say this...I hope you all do know I wasn't trying to start a film vs digital thing...I love them both...and I use them both. I was just trying to illustrate why I use film and in what application...That said...

I have found that scanning software has a HUGE impact on the scanned image. I started scanning in 4x5 and 120 negatives with my 9950F and I was VERY disappointed. I made a few adjustments and turn off most of the 'ehancements' in the software and got a much more neutral scan and with some minor contrast/level settings in photoshop I had a decent image. Then I got turned onto VueScan. Night and day difference. Its a little clunkier to use than the built in Canon software...but my goodness the results are different.

I also have a buddy who owns a CoolScan 9000 and it will do 120 negatives. That thing is incredible...its so close to a high end drum scan that I am hard pressed to see the difference in print form.

Another thing and this is just purely a personaly observation and opinion...but I think digital photographs have somewhat warped our perception of what things actually look like. Again this isnt a bash on digital photography, rather its a bash on the current trends, EVERYWHERE in processing images. Seems like all of the mainstream photographs in magazines etc are grossly over saturated, dramatic and unrealistic contrast levels are prevelant and everything is sharpened to the point of absurdity.

Again not slamming digital cameras or photoshop or anything like that. It just seems to be the 'vogue' thing to saturate/contrast/sharpen the snot out of a photograph until its approaching the point of CGI or something. I think after a while of seeing this kind of image...everywhere we get to the point of seeing grain in film as a defect.

If you look at a person...and I mean REALLY look at them. Study them...pay attention to the greatest details. You see all kinds of things that are there, but that we ignore...regularly. Skin has pores I dont care who you are...you have pores in your skin. Photoshopping them to a smooth plastic surface looks like a childrens toy...not a person. Landscapes...while in that magic moment of perfect light you do have some amazing colors, its NEVER as saturated nor does it have contrast that dramatic as many popular photographers make it out to be. It simply doesnt look like that.

I am all for stylized images. I understand that the current trends are over stauration high contrast and wicked sharpness...I present to you however, this is an illusion. Our world does not look like this. But...when we see it in our magazines, see it on our television and see it in photographs we all look at far too much on the internet it begins to ingrain itself in your mind. If you stop, look and truly observe you will often find that this vogue look is so far from reality that its almost absurd.

This is one of the things I love about film so much. A straight up film photograph is very honest. You may have some color shift based on lighting but the resolution is soo good...you see the pores and squirrely eye brow hair etc. Its organic...its real and its truthful.

[photophorous]

My film scanner isn't the greatest and I'm not Scott Kelby when it comes to Photoshop - but with properly exposed Provia 100F 35mm slides I felt like I was almost pushing my luck with an 8x10 print.

I think you can blame your scanner for this...at least partially. Since I got the Coolscan, I'm seeing all kinds of detail I didn't even know was there in my Fuji slides and recently in a roll of Acros. I thought 4000 dpi would be overkill, but it's not for fine grain films.

[Xia_Ke]

I agree. If I turn off all the "correction" options on my film scanner and straight scan at 4800dpi There are so many tiny little details to be seen. Though with 120 film, that's about 15 minutes a frame for B&W. Color film with ICE is almost a half hour I usually just scan at about 1200dpi for the stuff I post here and that's just under 2 minutes a frame.

[mtbbrian]

My question is..
What format do you save it in to get the best results?
JPG? TIFF? PSD? or??
Brian

[Xia_Ke]

I use 16-bit grayscale TIFF for all my saved files and export as jpeg when I want to post something.

[photophorous]

You want to use an uncompressed file format. I usually use TIFF, but PSD is just as good. The reason I prefer TIFF over PSD, is because PSD limits you to working in photoshop.

Paul

[another view]

Just to say this...I hope you all do know I wasn't trying to start a film vs digital thing...I love them both...and I use them both. I was just trying to illustrate why I use film and in what application...

That's how I took it and I think it's very interesting that you - if I have this right - shoot film, develop film, scan film and then work in Photoshop, then "print" a negative and make a wet print from that. Sounds to me like you're doing this so you can make a straight print for the sake of consistency and also making your own life easier. I've seen two versions of Moonrise, Hernandez that looked different so nothing against you on that! I'm curious first off if my little synopsis of your workflow is correct.

I have heard of Vuescan and should probably give that a try. I'd love to put a Coolscan 9000 with that but...

And I'd recommend a TIFF file as being the most archival. I have heard that a .PSD file created on an early version of Photoshop may not be recognized by the latest version - not something that would likely happen switching from CS2 to CS3, etc - but say there was an image that you worked on years ago and couldn't access it now...

[Jason Hopkins]

That's how I took it and I think it's very interesting that you - if I have this right - shoot film, develop film, scan film and then work in Photoshop, then "print" a negative and make a wet print from that. Sounds to me like you're doing this so you can make a straight print for the sake of consistency and also making your own life easier. I've seen two versions of Moonrise, Hernandez that looked different so nothing against you on that! I'm curious first off if my little synopsis of your workflow is correct.

Thats absolutely correct.

I don't wish to spend 20 years perfecting techniques in the darkroom that I am already very proficient with in photoshop. =) Using this workflow...I can easily make burning and dodging for instance a VERY quick operation. Dust and or hair spots on the negative are equally and quickly dealt with in just a few minutes.

Additionally this opens doors to being able to take advantage of both films inherient superior image quality AND the ease of digital retouching and if desired minimal to extreme manipulation. Being somewhat of a traditionalist...I generally dont manipulate much of anything in 95% of what I shoot. Though I DO admit to working on a series of film based prints that have heavy amounts of photoshop trickery involved. ;-)

Additionally, printing my own touched up negatives on transparent films using archival quality inks I am building in redundant levels of image archival. I have of course the film negatives, I have the scans archived, I also maintain an archive of touched up images (step before I convert to negative film for printing) and the digital negative file. Lastly, I always keep the first wet print in a run. For every print I produce, and sell...there are 5 different archival points both in analog and digital format. The main working piece, the printed out contact negative, while its reuseable, having digital copies and the ability to whip another negative up also is very beneficial should something happen to the working sample.

Its a cubersome way to work, but it provides the best resolutions and reproductions that *I* can afford to produce. There are tons of archival points to make it less likely to loose work over time. Plus it allows me to produce contact prints, to date up to 20" x 30". I don't know of anyone producing contact prints of this size as in traditional processes your limited to the film negative size. Can you imagine what it would be like to tote a 20X30 view camera up a mountain? ;-) Me either...

[gahspidy]

I know it has been mentioned on PR.com before, but, Durst is making an enlarger that morphs the two mediums. Call it a "digital enlarger" if you will.
It works just like a traditional enlarger in every aspect, other than it projects a digital file and has a computer attached to it.
Brian

Brian, yes this enlarger is just like the "LightJet" system. El-Co Color Labs www.elcocolor.com has recently purchased the Durst unit. I have ordered many large prints from them already from this machine and have been very happy with them.
What I like also is that they offer a profile from the Durst Theta 76 machine that allows you to view your image in Photoshop with a "soft proof" so that you can see how it may actually look when printed.
They also will print your digital files to many different size slides including 35mm and larger.