digital workflow vs film?

Currently shoot film. Considering digital. Concerned that the

advantage and attraction of digital may come with unexpected

workload - computer time, Photoshop time.

 

These aren't enough to keep me from going digital, but more curious

as to what everyone's experience has been in making the transition to

digital. I don't hear many people complaining about it being a pain

in the @ss, but it's easy for the excitement of a new toy to dim the

pain a bit. I have a tough enough time making decent pictures (I

prefer the idea of 'making' rather than 'taking'), so don't want to

discover that I've got to spend 75% of my time fiddling with the

computer.

 

Thoughts?

 

David

What's film workflow in your eyes? a)dropping slide film at lab & stuffing mounted slides into magazine + insert magozine to projector? Or is it b) darkening room, mixing chemicals processing film, doing printing etc.?

I have 2 choices digital: If I shoot *.jpg I usually have them loaded to the pc enjoying a cup of something + cigarette while the GB is moved. Next thing is to batch process the whole stuff auto-contrast & unsharp masking which means having time for a pizza. Then I should have viewable results of some snapshots and am going for dumping, cropping and so on. Which might take time but cissors aren't faster.

If I like to be on the safe side I shoot RAW, need about 1 or 2 minutes for their conversion and about another cigarette for easy postprocessing or longer for sophisticated spotting, noise reduction software and all the rest like painted backgrounds, curve bending, color correction and so on. I'm quite sure my wet darkroom would be slower. To have my pics printed out I'd burn some CD to drop it at some Lab or might try my best with the color laserprinter at work. I had nothing of my own stuff printed yet; I'm happy with viewing on screen or e-mailing to friends.

<p>Let's put the learning curve aside. While learning the new tools and techniques you

may be (and most likely will be) slower than when using familiar tools and techniques.

<p>With experience, I have found that digital is faster than film-based workflow. Meaning

I can achieve the same quality in less time.

<p>Which raises an interesting question: what do you do with all this free time? You

might want to shot more, you might want to do something else (fishing, camping,...) or

you might want to raise the bar. I.e. aim for a higher quality.

<p>It's the last option that brings the unexpected workload and the computer time. The

choice is yours though, you can use digital to produce the same images faster or produce

better images in the same amount of time (or some intermediate solution).

<p>What I have found is I take more photos and I spend a lot of time in front of the

computer with my favorite ones...

<p>--ben<br><a href="http://www.marchal.com">marchal.com</a>

I shoot 4x5 Tri-X mostly, some 160PortraVC. I drum scan the film and print digitally. A hybrid workflow.

 

I find that I spend more time getting the prints the way that I want them, but that I always exceed what I could do in the darkroom. This is especially true of the color, but just as true for the B&W. For example, blocked up highlights just don't exist for me.

 

Now, I sort of define the idea of an AR personality. Hell, I own a drum scanner - what more proof do you need? IOW, YMMV.

Well Jochen it seems that digital is such a time-saver that I'll have to take up smoking to truly enjoy it.

 

I guess next time I'll opt for a paragraph-length title to clearly preface my question. My question was meant to compare the digital 'workflow' which is so enthusiaticly talked about - entailing a process after taking a picture (downloading, adjusting, cropping, usharp this, curve that, layer, and otherwise slice, dice, and make french fries)- versus film, where the average individual like myself simply takes their film to a lab.

 

Simply put, if someone goes digital do they need a degree in computer science and 15 yrs experience with PS to really enjoy the freakin' thing?

Take the memory card to a photo finisher with a Fuji Frontier machine(Wolf Camera, Sams Club, ...), put into a slot in a kiosk and designate what images are to be printed and what size. The images are downloaded automatically, you get a chit and pay the man at the counter. Pick up your prints an hour or two later.

 

If you want better results, or more control, stay tuned. There's actually a lot like this being discussed on Photo.Net.

Benoit and Hogarth, thanks for the thoughtful feedback.

 

It makes sense that the special pictures would get some extra attention; hence, greater computer time.

 

David

The short answer to your last question is NO. But there is indeed a learning curve and y

ou have to have quite a bit of free time to invest in fiddling with things, doing t

utorials, reading, etc to get up to speed. Oh yea photo.net helps to.

The computer side of it is one thing, but shooting digital slrs is slightly different as w

ell. You will also have to learn a few new techniques of shooting.

I switched to digital like 6 mos ago and got a new computer and PSCS like 3 mos ago a

nd am just now getting to where I'm comfortable with what I'm doing. It does take a w

hile. Especially if you want to get to where you are producing a superior product and d

oing things properly.

<p>

But the rewards are worth it. Besides all the obvious things like savings on cost, etc. Y

ou gain control of everything in your image making process. The ability for better q

uality is there if you care to strive for it.

There are a ton of things to learn indeed but it's better to get started now as where d

igital is still coming into being rather than waiting even longer because this is the way t

hings are going. Take it or leave it. There aren't shortcuts to things worth doing so it's a

n uphill battle at first but go get some books, stay on photo.net and play around a lot a

nd you'll get there soon enough.

The real question is "what is your present film workflow?" Your digital workflow will require downloading, sorting, cropping, resizing, and so on. Do you work at a computer at work? This may influence whether you want to work at a computer when you come home. Photoshop is deep, but you don't need to do a lot with it when you have a well-exposed, well-framed digital shot. The real pay off for me is when the digital shot is finally a "final file," and for more copies you just print more. Repeating the dodging and burning on a fibre base exhibition print in the chemical darkroom can be a real chore when you want a lot of originals.

As far as the amount of work involved goes, it's all actually (in my experience) pretty similar. If you don't want much control you drop the film or digital files off as they came out of the camera and they get printed. If you want more control you either spend time in a darkroom, or far more common nowadays, in photoshop. Whether you're shooting film or digital, total control over your images means work in post. Assuming you're not using a darkroom, that means the workflow is going to be for the most part the same, save the worry of developing and scanning film.

All good responses. Thanks.

 

Certainly the thought of having greater control over my prints is VERY enticing. I've been using good films (Reala, NPH, Delta 100, etc..) and two good labs, but ever since I had an enlargement made of the same picture at each lab with two very different results, I've thought of the advantage digital might provide. That, coupled with the fact that I would be starting from ground zero - old, underpowered computer, broken printer, no DSLR - has me wondering if I'd be biting off more than I'd really enjoy. Your responses however have basically confirmed what I'd already felt.......digital is really good but will take a somewhat involved learning curve to eventually enjoy.

 

David

David,</p>I'm relatively new to the digital side of things. I bought a film scanner a while back and that was my first taste of "post-processing." It's great fun having total control over the final product as a result of photoshopping and printing at home. But scanning can be very time consuming, and while I know that it must be possible to have high-quality scans all the time, my experience was a bit more hit-and-miss than that. I've had a 10D for several months now and getting the photos from the camera to the computer is MUCH faster than having to have the film processed and then having to scan it. Also, what you get in your computer from your digital camera isn't subject to the whims of the scanning hardware and software. And now comes the fun part, the work in photoshop that can be as brief or as time-consuming as you want it to be. I spend a lot more time with my photography (from snapping to printing) than I ever did before, but I'm enjoying it, learning and experiencing a level of control over the final product that is perfect for me. I shoot RAW exclusively with embedded high-quality JPGS and I've never been satisfied with straght lab printing of the extracted jpgs. </p>So my opinion is that unless you think you'll be satisfied with letting a lab do your printing straight from your camera, you're going to be spending more time at the computer. If you are going to settle for the lab work, I wouldn't even bother switchig to digital, because I don't know that there's much of an advantage. But if you have any inkling that you'd enjoy the digital darkroom work, you should go for it because it's one of those things that's addictive--each time out you learn a little bit more, just enough to lead you to beleive that it's well worth the time you're spending, and that one day you'll really master the process. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise: it takes a lot of time. I think most of us would say it's time enjoyed and well spent. The qusetion for you is whether you'd agree. --Russ

Yes, there is a learning curve of about a year or two - not 15. And you need a good computer with lots of specialty software - PS CS, Noise Ninja, etc. It depends on what type of output you want. Obviously, you cannot beat the convenience of photolab 4x6 prints from film or digital. If you want larger sizes with higher quality and with your creative input then digital is the way to go. The next decision is to either 1) start and stay with digital via digital camera or 2) with a hybrid route via film processed at the lab (or maybe at home) and then scanned at the lab (or at home - more upfront cost with the quality home scanner).

<p>I think we are reaching the point where you can work digitally without a computer. I

have experimented it on hollidays where I would order prints (and could have ordered

CDs) with just my camera.

<p>Also if you're willing and able to pay pro prices, you can find digital artists that will

work on your image in Phoshop for you.

<p>Realistically though, if you are not willing to spend time in front of the computer, if

you hate computers, if you are uncomfortable working with them; you won't enjoy digital. I

doubt there will be major benefits compared to your current workflow and the investment

in new camera, lenses and training remains significant.

<p>Again you can be as involved as you want to. But if you're not willing to get involved

with at least some of your prints, what's the point of changing?

<p>When I started with digital, I would treat all images as equal and spend time working

on all of them. It was great for learning but sooooo slow. Then a friend pointed out that

even when I had access to a wet room, I would not print all my photos myself because of

the effort involved. That remains valid in digital. You probably want to just order prints for

most images which is very fast.

<p>But if you are not going to spend time on those precious few, it's probably not worth

the expense.

<p>--ben<br><a href="http://www.marchal.com">marchal.com</a>

It all depends on what type of shooting you do.

 

First of all, any image needs work (tonal adjustments) and as proper RAW software (C1DSLR, not the crap that came with your camera) makes this so much easier that Photoshop, if you've got any volume of images (ie: 500 shot, 50 selected for keeping) RAW actualy works faster than JPEG. People who dissagree generaly haven't tried. :)

 

Generaly, for me 90% of images need only be worked on in C1DSLR before going onto the web. For prints, some more work in PS is needed, mainly resizing and sharpning. For more precise tonal adjustments than levels and simple curves, like dodging/burning, you have to use PS too, as well as for cleaning up images.

 

Initialy, there will be a learning curve, but once you are used to it, 90% of keepers will be ready for whatever use you want to put them to in minutes.

David

 

I've dabbled in digital, but went back to film because I use computers at work and don't want to spend more time working with them at home. Besides, there is no digital back for my Contax IIIa camera, which I really like. And my lab generally produces very nice and consistent results.

 

I also found that I was getting sloppy when using a digicam. And the shutter lag, noisy sensors, and lack of manual ficus drove me crazy. I know - DSLR's are better, but I don't want to drop $1,000 into a body that will be used as a door stop in 3 years.

 

So I'll watch the technology develop and mature. And in the maen time, I'll stick with film.

David, if you produce your photographs for yourself you'll see that the labor's quality was sh*t. Prints from digital darkroom (Photoshop) have more color, more contrast and show more of the original image (not clipped on all sides like the ones from the labor). Once you saw this you can never go back... Scanning negatives with a good film scanner is a beginning... (also you can improve your old photographs to a level you cannot imagine now and "recover" new photographs) Learning curve is steep, but there is no other way (for a photo enthusiast).

General response:

 

I'm not worried about having to use my computer in the photo process, my concern is being consumed by the process. I tend to go overboard with some stuff. For example: I took up cycling 2.5yrs ago to get somewhat fit, I've now been RACING for 2 yrs and ride my bike a few hours 6-7 days a week. Cycling isn't even remotely just nice a way to stay fit anymore. It's a major part of my day, everyday. I like to take pictures, but when my lovely wife hear's about the digital process - believe me, she hears about it alot - she just roll's her eyes. She knows whats likely to happen. I'm not a computer freak, but don't fear the techno demands either.

 

On another note, one of my good local labs uses the Fuji Frontier and they provide a downloadable "Digital Lab Profile", so I wouldn't have to get too weird with the printing side of it. And being that I'm so critical of my photo's I don't need many larger prints (11x14, 13x19 max) which means there's no great demand for me to get a nice/expensive printer that'll only clog-up on me from lack of use. Or, perhaps worse, I envision myself making a bunch of 13x19's of average stuff solely because I can. Nothing like having the walls covered by oversized prints of crappy shots.

 

Having said that, I'm excited by digital. I just don't want a reality shock after having spent thousands of dollars on camera, software, and computer. The responses from this forum are somewhat comforting. Not a lot of sugar coating; neither sobering nor overly glowing. The right mix of workload reality and excitement. Overall, the empowerment of digital comes with a price, but a price most seem to find worthwhile.

 

Thanks again. I'm going to run out today and buy the 11 pixel Canon EOS 1Ds, a G5 Mac with 23 inch Cinema display, Photoshop CS, 2 Epson 2200 printers (one for color, the other outfitted with custom iQuads B&W ink from www.Inkjetmall.com), custom profiles, and of course a drum scanner for some of the oldie-but-goodies. Kidding of course. Maybe I should start with a book instead.

 

David