Working with film

<p>Just out of curiousity, if I was to shot in film, and then when I get the shots developed have them scanned instead of printed- and then adjust everything in lightroom (especially the color balance, I hate farting around with all the filters) could that save me some headache/have the advantages of film minus some of the headache or is this idea just plain bad juju?</p>

<p>yes, it could. google hybrid photography.</p>

<p>Sounds like an expensive and time consuming way round learning how to handle digital images directly. Unless of course you don't have a digital camera in the first place.</p>

<p>That is the way I process my color prints. I have the film developed only, then I scan it on a Nikon Coolscan V. I crop, color balance, spot, etc. in Photoshop, then upload the files to Costco for printing. It gives me a color darkroom on my computer.</p>

<p>I print my black and white film in my own traditional darkroom.</p>

<p>Dean, the weak link in your proposed workflow will be the scanning. If your lab can do good scans at a reasonable price, you should be fine.</p>

<p>Dean, you could do that, but it would be quite labour-intensive, time-consuming, and possibly expensive, and would yield poorer images, because of the vagaries of the scanning process. You would also lose out on the brilliant advantages that digital photography offers over film:<br /> 1. Shooting RAW, which allows you +/- two f-stops of exposure adjustment when necessary, and the ability to set white balance after you shoot;<br /> 2. Histogram reference before and after you shoot, as well as instant review to check composition, exposure, focus, and pretty well everything else that's crucial;<br /> 3. The ability to back up your work instantly, which is great when you are shooting a non-repeatable event such as a wedding, or when you are traveling.<br /> 4. Speed of processing, especially when you are working to deadlines. You can transmit files directly from the field, and don't have to depend on a lab for anything.<br /> 5. There's more, as I'm sure others will point out.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You would also lose out on the brilliant advantages that digital photography offers over film:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ooooops?<br>

Just a few weak arguments for 'brilliant advantages'?<br>

That's definitely not enough for me. But I don't want to turn this thread into another digital vs. film ranting.</p>

<p>Dean, Brooks has hit the key issue - scanning is the problem. The machine made scans done in supermarket type labs are very poor and good scans are expensive (although there are some mail order options with good reputations). I scan my own but have spent the money on Nikon scanners ( I have both the 5000 and 9000). <br>

For black and white you get the best results staying in an all analogue process. While I scan and print colour images I stay wet for black and white. I used to do colour film with a wet process but the results are so similar to good printing that I no longer bother. With Black and White digital printing is still not at the same level as the wet process. In addition B&W processing is easier than colour.<br>

Without starting a digital vs film debate (I shoot both and probably 10x as many digital as film) I will make the following observations:<br>

In terms of resolution good 35mm digital beats 35mm film - my 5DII (the highest image quality DSLR I own) produces resolution at the same level as my Mamiya M645. It is not as good as my Fuji GX680 but the image is only 1/5th of the size.<br>

In terms of high ISO digital has film beat but for dynamic range I find good low ISO print film still beats 14 bit digital (both colour and B&W). Slide film is very similar and perhaps lower dynamic range. I wait for the post showing that DXOMark gets 12-14 EV dynamic ranges in their tests and film lower. The internet is covered in posts on this topic but I find I get better dynamic range from film although in the real world there is little difference.<br>

In terms of the immediate feedback of digital this is true - and important for many people and subjects. But, for many subjects I prefer the excitement of the unknown. Many many years ago I shot weddings with a pair of MF bodys and I am sure that if I did it these days I would use digital. That said in terms of backup I am not yet convinced that digital is as good as film. Film has passed the test of time but digital seems to have a number of possible issues (Technology changes, software evolution, storage failures, viruses etc...)<br>

For me I find when I look at my shots at the end of the year my best shots are split about 50:50 between film and digital. There are merits to both systems and yes technically the digital image is cleaner and easier. Yet many of my most atmospheric shots are taken on old film cameras. Plus none of my DSLRs (1DIIN, 5DII, 7D and Panasonic M4/3) have the same feel and build quality as my Leica M6 or my old Canon F1s. Photography is only part science - it is also part art.</p>

<p>I shoot B&W still and develop my own. But I don't print. I scan the negatives (at home on an Epson V500).</p>

<p>I'm still happy with the results and find that working with film has made me change my digital approach as well. I especially enjoy shooting medium format, both Holga and Pentax 645. I simply find that I get more 'keepers'.</p>

<p>YMMV. :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>While I made the switch to digital about 4 years ago, I still can't resist using my Contax and Zeiss glass every now and then. For really critical work I scan with my Coolscan 4000. However I often have the film developed and scanned at Costco. They provide a 3088 x 2048 pixel scan which is pretty good quality.</p>

<p>Here is a 100% crop. FujiColor Pro 400, Contax RTSII, 85mm/2.8 Sonnar</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Mike: Unfortunately, Costco in Canada stopped developing film a year or so ago. Until then, I did the same thing. Sadly, it's not longer an option.</p>