I'm done with film.

I too tired of endlessly editing photos in Photoshop, scanning my negs, dealing with ^$*#~!! inkjet printers, all that. But digital photos look weird to me compared to film, and generally I don't like digital cameras. My simplification solution was to ditch the digital end of film shooting and print with an enlarger on real photographic paper. Wow, has that made life simpler, and gives me better photos too. If I had to go to digital photography I would give up photography and try something else.

 

Previously, the error in my thinking was that I thought you needed a darkroom and a sink to print wet photos. But you don't. After spending lots of time making our extra bedroom light tight I finally figured this out. All you need is a "dark" room. So now I wait until it's dark and print wherever. The kitchen, the dining room, it don't matter. Duh. The finished prints sit in a tray of water and are walked over to the bathroom to be washed in the tub.

 

Focus problems are easily solved.........just use auto focus cameras.

Edited July 1, 2018 by steve_mareno|1

But digital photos look weird to me compared to film, and generally I don't like digital cameras.

 

Having spent much of my adult work life involved with such things, including customizing tonal response curves for digital cameras and dealing with lab color problems, I'd just say that the digital images you see are not being well handled. Can't really say much else - people who are really good at it seem to be fairly rare.

 

If you were to photograph and then print out some long-scale gray scales on both a professional film vs digital camera, you will probably see where the fundamental differences are.

Wow that this thread go off in a weird Direction.

 

No I did a lot of comparison a lot of looking at some prints from a dark room that were printed off of negatives and then scanned prints that were printed off of inkjet some different type of p printers I much prefer the look of the darkroom prints. But way too much trouble to do dark room prints so that takes care of that.

 

I'm actually deciding between the Fuji xt2 or the Pentax K1 Mark 2. Kind of leaning towards the Pentax the Pentax has got some very interesting features and it's a full-frame 36 megapixel.

Wow that this thread go off in a weird Direction.

Same old tiresome self-indulgent hijacking and near-zero moderation that are killing the site.

I agree I mean my thread has gone in a complete 180 degree different direction basically It Got Hijacked.

Think of these threads as conversations among knowledgeable members of a group. Conversations evolve, but as long as they don't turn nasty or political, no real harm is done.

I'm going to have to disagree with you Ed about that if you're talking about the Nikon d5000 and I come in and start another thread in the middle of your thread about the Sony a7r that's jacking your thread completely disagree with you and I think a lot of other people would.

 

To each their own whatever. it's very disrespectful.

I agree I mean this thread has gone in a complete 180 degree different direction basically It Got Hijacked.

 

Michael, with all due respect, I don't believe you even asked a question when you started "your thread." All I see is, in general terms - not a quote - is, "I think I'm gonna stop using film," and "Here are some factors in my decision." I didn't see that you really established a hard "direction" for the thread.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Personally, even when a thread DOES have a preset topic, I think it's useful for a knowledgeable poster to gently correct off-topic misconceptions (via incorrect statements) that arise along the way. Failure to do so may be seen as an affirmation of sorts.

 

I would agree that, in threads with a specific intent, it's generally a good idea to stay on topic, but I have no objection if someone brings up a relatively minor side topic that is perhaps not worth its own thread.

 

I gotta agree with Ed, it's like a conversation. Although you started it you don't control it. But if you start with a question, and it does not get answered, then - my opinion - you ought to try steering it back by pointing this out. This is kinda how I deal with it in my local after-work bar, without feeling disrespected.

The original thread invites no commentat all.

One post threads would get old quick.

"Thank you everybody for your advice and your help to help me get through all of this it took some time some money and some effort but I think I'm going to be a lot happier buying myself a digital camera." This was from the op's original post which started the thread.

 

Looking back, I guess at that point we should have all said thank you too and moved on :]

 

People like conversations though, and I think there were quite a lot of helpful suggestions made, so it was a good thread in my eyes. These things never go where we think they will anyway. Everyone sees things differently, which is the beauty of a forum, and as someone said, as long as things are kept respectful, and it appears to me that they were, then all to the good.

 

I still don't understand how moving to digital is going to help with a focusing issue since a viewfinder is a viewfinder whether or not it's digital or film, unless the reference was to autofocus vs manual focus.

I still don't understand how moving to digital is going to help with a focusing issue since a viewfinder is a viewfinder whether or not it's digital or film, unless the reference was to autofocus vs manual focus.

Not all viewfinders are the same. Electronic viewfinders (and Live View) offer aids to manual focusing, including peaking and temporary magnification. The former highlights sharp edges as they come into focus, and the latter is like using a loupe on a ground glass.

Freedom is a beautiful thing in both word and photo......

"Thank you everybody for your advice and your help to help me get through all of this it took some time some money and some effort but I think I'm going to be a lot happier buying myself a digital camera." This was from the op's original post which started the thread.

 

Looking back, I guess at that point we should have all said thank you too and moved on :]

 

People like conversations though, and I think there were quite a lot of helpful suggestions made, so it was a good thread in my eyes. These things never go where we think they will anyway. Everyone sees things differently, which is the beauty of a forum, and as someone said, as long as things are kept respectful, and it appears to me that they were, then all to the good.

 

I still don't understand how moving to digital is going to help with a focusing issue since a viewfinder is a viewfinder whether or not it's digital or film, unless the reference was to autofocus vs manual focus.

Yes obviously the problem was focusing having to turn the lens and get it pinpoint sharp on the object them focus on a digital camera you don't have to do that auto focus does that for you.

 

If you read my previous post I solved the focusing problem with the different Focus screens that I purchased the problem was not focusing anymore the problem was I do not like the look of scanned filmthe differ and then print them.

 

I like the look of film printed in a dark room a real darkroom it looks fabulous My ultimate goal is that unrealistic in my situation to go to a dark room too far away too much trouble not worth it.

 

I have taken some digital prints and ran silver efex Pro 2 and I have achieved the look that I'm looking for I get somewhat of a film look and I can print them out on my Canon Pixma Pro 1000 printer and extremely happy with the look.

 

Now it's just buy myself a digital camera and some lenses and I will be a happy camper.

Just some Points of Information. The Braun FS-120 is a currently manufactured, warranted product from a reputable company. It costs about the same as a used Nikon LS-9000. I have a Polaroid SprintScan 120, and used Nikon scanners for many years. The Pola is every bit as good as the Nikons, although it doesn't have an IR channel. As far as wet vs. dry darkroom is concerned, I find that a good scan from a chrome or neg retains the color values and relationships of the original. To me, the "only a wet darkroom" school is simply a case of purism. If, however, you prefer the "analog" process, I won't say anything to dissuade you. Both can produce gorgeous results.

I have processed some stuff over the last few days Inn in nik software, they have an analog mode that adds film simulation to digital images it works fantastic it's the look I'm happy with and what I was trying to achieve with scanning but was unable to. To me using this software combined with Lightroom and then pointed it out on my Canon Pro 100 looks absolutely stunningly fabulous I'm happiest can be no more buying feel no more processing film no more scanning all those extra steps are eliminated.

Well, I'm done with digital.

 

Couldn't stand machine-gun shooting habits, 'expose-to-the-right' degeneration of shadows, too sharp, too 5K-like images, feeling I was shooting with a computer, day-long photoshop manipulation, worries about images' storage in the future. Oh dear!

I have processed some stuff over the last few days Inn in nik software, they have an analog mode that adds film simulation to digital images it works fantastic it's the look I'm happy with and what I was trying to achieve with scanning but was unable to.

 

At the risk of offending you and also per c_watson introducing "self indulgent hi-jacking"....

 

What camera did you buy?

Sony a7r ii

Picked up 40 rolls of Kodak E100G in 35mm that have been frozen for years. First test roll turned out great. Should keep me going until the new Ektachrome is out. That should help reduce my digital use.

Sounds like lots of developing and scanning to me know thanks. Unless of course you are printing the prints out if you make prints in the darkroom.

Picked up 40 rolls of Kodak E100G in 35mm that have been frozen for years. First test roll turned out great. Should keep me going until the new Ektachrome is out. That should help reduce my digital use.

 

I have a roll in my F100 that has been there a month-I need to finish it. Unfortunately, I only have four more behind it. I also have four rolls in 120, but the one roll I shot didn't look great. I just hope that initial 35mm sales are strong enough to bring it back in 120(and 220 if they're feeling generous).

 

I also have a 5 roll pro pack of E100GX 220, but haven't dug into that yet. I've shot two rolls of color negative film in my Hassy A24 back and have a roll of TXP 320 in it now, but don't want to risk the E100GX until I've made sure it doesn't leak and indexes properly. Actually, I should order some light seals and just replace them-I have it down to about a 10 minute job in Hasselblad back, and it's ~$15 of cheap insurance. I'm going to try and pick up another A24 considering how cheap they are and that I've also found out that I can still get Velvia 100 in 220 from Japan.

 

Oops, though, we're off topic again...

Best of luck to you Michael, the Sony AR711 may be a good camera, I don't know. I only have compact digital cameras and this discussing has prompted me to take a closer look at them and after scrolling through the menu on the one I use the most, I'm finding features I've missed before or thought I'd never need. I now make more use of "Center" focusing. I've set the "Sharpening" feature to "On", and set ASA 80 permanently on. These changes are improving my images out of sight from this pocketable 12MP Canon Ixus

 

Film photography is my hobby though, as I'm sure it is for many amateurs, a pure hobby we enjoy but at the same time understand that digital is a natural extension in the evolution of photography. However, some of us still relish the old way, diehards to the end you could say

 

There is of course other aspects to photography where digital is not possibly. Trying out an old film camera just for the fun of it, an old Kodak. An ancient view camera. A Mamiya Press as in my avatar which I'm customizing at present (the leatherette color changes every day because I can't make up my mind).

 

I think I'll settle on this one ...

 

 

 

So our "Hobby" really dictates what we do

 

Nevertheless I'm into both digital and film, it's just that film takes precedence over digital in my hobby of photography and digital cameras are not for everyone mainly because of the great expense to buy a high MP one, one that's not known for "locking up", blowing out highlights etc. Whereas, an amateur armed with a simple film camera of reasonable quality and a hand held light meter is unlikely to be tearing their hair out as often. Modern equipment of an electronic nature is prone to cause great heartache at times, I've had more than my share, with TVs, satellite equipment, computers, mobile phones and digital cameras. All requiring hours on the web searching for solutions to problems. Most of the time, charities could have put my money to better use instead of me buying half the stuff I've purchased

Thank you, I wish you nothing but luck too

 

Yeah I just hope through all of this threaded all this trial and error I do love film I do love film cameras I love medium format cameras it's the adapting it to sort of a digital world that I don't like.

 

For me developing the film I love it put in a roll of film in the camera and whining it forwardI l and looking through that screen and focusing is a lot of fun.

 

I spent 4 years in school studying photography and I fell in love with film developing the film and making my own prints in the dark room Black and White.

 

I lived in that dark room hours and hours and hours on end practicing printing and I got fairly decent at it and I really enjoyed making prints.

 

I shot 6 X 7 4 x 5 those were my two favorites I love the 4 X 5 camera I love taking it out and shooting landscape and developing the film and making prints.

 

I think since I've come back into photography I didn't know what I wanted exactly I came back and I bought a digital camera I didn't like the look of the digital but I didn't explore it enough I didn't like the look of it so I got rid of it and bought myself a 6 X 7 film camera. And never contented printing the negatives in a dark room I don't have a dark room most of the dark rooms of closed up and getting to one is just too much trouble. I thought I would just mix film sorter with digital scanning to be exact.

 

That's where all my troubles began I could not get scanned film to look good in my eyes I'm sure other people are completely happy with it to me it just never looked good. It was like this image that was crying out to be printed in a dark room a wet dark room. Scanned and print it out on an inkjet printer process through Lightroom it have a weird look that I can't put into words.

 

Maybe I was so stuck on what a dark room print looks like that I thought it would basically look the same I thought scanned it printed it and out came this film looking thing that wasn't the case.

 

Since I bought my digital camera and a I have used silver efex Pro 2I, and Nik software analog 2 among other softwares I have achieved a digital image that has a film look to it. after I process my images and I print them out on my inkjet printer in my eyes they look how I envisioned it to look it's got that subtle grain look of film it just has the look that I'm looking for then I'm happy I've been able to achieve.

 

Some people don't like mirrorless cameras some people do this Sony a7r II is a fantasticthe So at a very good price used you can pick up one for $1, 500 and you're getting a 42 megapixel camera that shoots fantastic images. Plenty of lenses available to to me I think for 2000 bucks and you get 42 megapixels it's pretty tough to beat.

 

I miss my Bronica camera that I sold I still have all my darkroom stuff for developing myI film I still have rolls of film sitting around. Yeah I kind of miss load in the film and shooting it. I certainly don't miss having to scan all of it and send it out to someone to scan it and then if you want really good scans they're not cheap.

 

That was another thing trying to buy a scanner most of the Epson scanners I don't find very good I heard the Nikon one was pretty good but that's more money the whole scanning thing did not appeal to me at all. having to send it out and pay for it and then if you really want to blow up a big print and have a really nice image you need a drum scan which very pricey to have one negative that you can blow up large and it cost just $65 no thank you

 

Yes I had to put out more money to get the digital stuff but in the end all the film I won't have to buy all the developing chemicals I won't have to buy all the scanning I won't have to pay for I'll be ahead in the end. and there is certainly something to say about taking your memory card out and popping it in the computer and Bam all your pictures are right in front of you kind of cool.

Due to the format shape and the amount of cropping needed, you can get a theoretical 28 MP "scan" of a 6x6 negative with your A7Rii. That reduces to 22 MP if you crop inside the actual frame lines of a Hasselblad negative (5.6x5.6). Rectangular formats fare better. A 645 negative is theoretically 37 MP when cropped, as is a 4x5 negative. The resolution may not seem like much, but it is approximately twice the effective resolution of a flatbed scanner for MF film, and much faster to execute. I posted a fairly comprehensive thread (below) on the process, including color negative conversion.

 

Scanning Color Negatives With a Camera