Film: Hello or Goodbye?

[brmill26]

I'm curious by those who started out shooting digital if #3 was in fact the driving force which piqued their interest in film. Or was it that they could not replicate the look of the images they had seen by the Masters? Or was it something else altogether?

I shot digital first. For me, it's mostly the look. The challenge is cool, but that's not the point for me. The point is the photo and film simply looks different than digital. And also, I wanted to use fully manual/mechanical equipment. I'm a gearhead anyway, so I found a lot of appeal in manual cameras. Further, I said it above, but there's simply nothing like composing an image on the massive focusing screen of a TLR; I love that. I love the look of the old cameras (externally and on film), and the character they have.

[almo]

Love the stuff, and when I can afford it I will set up my own dark room and shoot much more. I currently have a roll of HP5 in my FSLR.

[draymorton]

"Farewell, Mr. Bond, but not goodbye..."

That pretty much sums up my relationship with film at present.

I love film - it's the medium I started with - but I haven't been shooting it much lately due to the costs involved.

The inherent cleanliness (and cheapness!) of digital is kind of.... addictive? And digital files respond much better to post-production, at least in my experience. But, at the end of the day, I still prefer the look of film.

I was never much of a printer dude. That's something I still very much want to get into at some point.

[Loupey]

Needless to say, cleaning up these images has not been very fun - and before I thought the occasional dust speck on the sensor was "inconvenient"

Since I've never scanned any images or film, please tell me what "cleaning up" the images means.

Dust, dust, and more dust The big pieces that I can see are easy to brush off prior to scanning, but those tiny specks that have imbedded themselves into the emulsion side over the years are very frustrating.

Keep in mind that my 6x4.5cm films have over 3 times the area of standard 35mm film and over 8 times the area of my APS-C digital camera. So dust management is even more of a factor.

[Loupey]

Question for the group: Are there many/any labs that will even print analog-to-analog (direct from film to paper) anymore? I suspect that if you sent them original film they would scan it first and then print on the same equipment they do for any other digital file.

So, does the digitizing (whether you do it yourself or have the lab do it) and the subsequent digital print preserve the "look" of film?

Now that I have some scans complete, I can finally print some out digitally to see how they compare to my original Cibachrome prints. Will let you know.

A few more completed scans:

[photophorous]

Question for the group: Are there many/any labs that will even print analog-to-analog (direct from film to paper) anymore? I suspect that if you sent them original film they would scan it first and then print on the same equipment they do for any other digital file.

So, does the digitizing (whether you do it yourself or have the lab do it) and the subsequent digital print preserve the "look" of film?

Now that I have some scans complete, I can finally print some out digitally to see how they compare to my original Cibachrome prints. Will let you know.

A few more completed scans:

Nice photos!

My local lab will do B&W or color, film or prints, and a variety of special processes all by hand if you're willing to pay for it. I've never been willing to pay for it, so I can't comment on their quality.

Don't rush to judge this hybrid film/digital process based on your first prints. Not to criticize your editing or scanning skills in any way, but these tasks are at least a little bit different from dealing with digital camera files and will likely require a learning curve to get the best results. To really get the most out of your film it's best to scan them yourself or pay big bucks for high quality scans at a competent lab. Your average minilab CD scans will not do the film justice.

A film scan, just like a RAW file, is only a starting point for a digital print. You can edit the scan to look very similar to an analog print if that's your goal, or you can go for something different all together. I don't claim to attempt to emulate analog prints with my scanned film prints. I just prefer the results I end up with when I start with a film scan as opposed to a RAW file. That's the only practical comparison for me, since I don't have the option to make wet prints myself and I don't want to leave that significant portion of the process up to someone else.

Paul

[drg]

Question for the group: Are there many/any labs that will even print analog-to-analog (direct from film to paper) anymore? I suspect that if you sent them original film they would scan it first and then print on the same equipment they do for any other digital file.

So, does the digitizing (whether you do it yourself or have the lab do it) and the subsequent digital print preserve the "look" of film?

Now that I have some scans complete, I can finally print some out digitally to see how they compare to my original Cibachrome prints. Will let you know.

A few more completed scans:

There are different 'digital' printing technologies! It will depend upon color v. b/w as to paper type and how it even gets rendered.

I find that a laser/Lightjet printer when set up and run properly does a tremendous job of making prints 'almost' the old fashioned way even with a 'scanned/digitized' negative. Or positive from a slide that then gets tweaked around back to a negative and then to a positve. Or if the right level of software is installed in the RIP engine, it prints 'directly.'

Printing digitally on traditional paper in b/w is amazing. I believe it is regularly starting to surpass the traditional methods because of the way that enlarging is accomplished. It is not dependent upon the optical phenomena which requires better lenses than originally were used to make the negative. As the control of the lasers exceeds the dynamic range of the papers by 2 or more orders of magnitude (100x) all the detail of the negative can be wrung out effectively.

Color can be very precisely controlled, but at the commercial level that is a decades old reality. Today you just don't need a multi-million dollar environment to achieve that level. Tens of thousands for anything other than one print at time certainly.

Inkjet prints now exceed the range of traditional paper processes by a substantial amount. Learning how far they can be pushed makes for an interesting couple of days. I'm not necessarily talking any inkjet, but those that have ink sets that are of a wider gamut with the appropriate application (i.e. micro-droplets) can produce stunning results.

Many photographes have been disappointed because they have been sold inkjet printing as a plug and play solution. Up to a point it can be used that way. The best results come with a substantial learning curve and experimentation to see what works for each photographer's needs and desires.

Inkjet prints look different. Not better or worse, but even at normal viewing angles and distance, they have a distinct appearance.

For black and white the halide papers still have a magic quality for me. Part of it is that there's an obvious physical quality to the print that is unique.

[Cathathome]

Question for the group: Are there many/any labs that will even print analog-to-analog (direct from film to paper) anymore? I suspect that if you sent them original film they would scan it first and then print on the same equipment they do for any other digital file.

I have to call the camera shop now and check this! It never occurred to me.

[Speed]

or will have, a resurgence of popularity and I think it would be interesting to collect the data.

You may be right Paul. The last time I had a roll of slides developed, the lab told me that they were seeing an increase in slides brought in for developing. I remember it wasn't so long ago, that some said black and white was going to be gone in short order. Then it made a resurgence that took me by surprise.

Digital constantly makes upgrades, but the film industry made some hugh strides a few years back before digital took the world by storm. I love my D200 and D300, but there is a reason I kept my film cameras. For astrophotography, digital can't compete with film. Also, try taking a six or eight hour exposure with your digital camera. IF the battery will last that long, the noise level would be unbelieveable. But I just lock the cable on my shutter release, and my trusty old K1000 will keep gathering photons as long as the shutter is open...