If we shoot film then scan

<p>I am a old film shooter, shoot almost all digital, but I do wonder about SOME of the current film shooters. They shoot film, then scan the negatives. Why not just shoot digital & save a couple of steps ?</p>

<p>Maybe because they still love film cameras and don't have a decent digital one?</p>

<p>I have more than a hundred film cameras. If they had ever got around to, or had been able to, develop the promised "drop into the film area" digital sensor for film cameras, it is possible that I would never shoot film again*. Especially now that my favorite films like Kodachrome and Polaroid Type 72 are dead.<br /> It's not a case of not having a "decent digital camera," most especially since most really adequate scanners cost as much as many digital cameras; it's the case of loving these old mechanical monsters -- many of them without the hint of anything electric or electronic about them.</p>

<p>It's not unlike the love of fine machinery. A $5 digital watch from Walmart may nowadays outperform the finest Swiss wristwatch, but many still pay thousands of dollars for the latter, not solely for "conspicuous consumption".</p>

<p>_________<br /> *There is, I do confess, something about the smell of fixer in the evening. ;)</p>

<p>I consider my final output to be silver gelatin prints on fiber paper. Unfortunately, until I retire and have the time to make all the prints I want to, I scan negatives in order to be able to post recent images here and elsewhere.<br>

I have had people ask how I get such good B&W conversion and quality in my prints. They are interested that I still shoot film and process traditionally and admit that there really might be a difference.</p>

<p>Certainly there is a love for film, but there is also a quality that film scanned has that still is not quite the same as a digital capture. The file that results from a film scan is not the same as one from a film capture nor is it created the same way. Film scans are the result of RGB being recorded for each pixel position whereas, except for the Foveon chip, a digital capture interpolates 2 of the 3 colors for each pixel position. Anyone who has worked with both types of files extensively knows that the digital file is not yet quite the same when working it in post, it doesn't have the same elasticity, if that is the right word.</p>

<p>I do both and probably shoot more digital than film these days, but there is still something about film that is scanned that makes the old heart go thump! (and hopefully, not stopping thereafter........)</p>

<p>I will also mention that, for images already on film, the scanning and processing in a "digital darkroom" can often reveal treasures that were obscure or unavailable in any non-Ansel-Adamesque way as slides or negatives.</p>

<p>I think Ansel Adams might well still shoot film (as well as digital) if he were alive today, but from various comments he made in his works, I think he would LOVE the latest versions of Photoshop.</p>

<p>Our choice of 8x10" digital sensors is kinda limited too (but see <a href="http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/tech/scanner.html">LINK</a>). %-}</p>

<p>If I want digital images for a practical reason, especially if I want them quickly, using a digital camera makes sense.<br>

If I want to do some film photography, obviously it doesn't.<br>

But I suppose if I want to do some film photography and then scan some negatives as well, its not illegal or anything.<br>

Thing is, the scanned image is a by product, its not the main objective.</p>

<p>Also, I usually back up digital images on at least one other hard drive.<br>

Sometimes I use scanning the same way, as a form of digital back up for the negatives, before doing anything else with them.</p>

<p>Shooting night high school football images at ISO 6400 and ending up with decent prints, cannot be compared to the attempt with ISO 3200 film (a couple of years ago...) and having endless grain to contend with.</p>

<p>Both have a place in shooting images: one is working well, and one used to sometimes work well....</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have done this (film to scan) because: I just flat out like film, and, I think about the picture in a way that uses the insensitivity of film to my advantage.</p>

<p>Digital camera systems are not well suited to using spectral sensitivity as an editing method. If you're going to use the light itself to edit the image as you build it, digital sucks. If you want to catch everything, digital rocks.</p>

<p>If you can't get the lens cap off of the camera without flubbing the photo, take a camera class! Hey, that's me, too, sometimes. It's all of us.</p>

<p>If you want to capture everything, increase the intensity of everything, have it all be highly detailed, and then expect to build a picture out of that: then, digital's great. I just don't see how it is other people are thinking that way as they use their cameras. Since that's not important, I just do my stuff, and they do theirs. Consequently, there are some procedural differences. Whoop-de-doo.</p>

<p>If you think about the image that you want, and then backsolve the procedure to generate that, and do that a few times: well, then these questions about procedural superiority are just a phase we all go through in order to emerge as better photographers.</p>

<p>The answer that emerges is that the better procedure is the one that lets you do whatever; but, this answer arrives with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_Taxonomy">a succession of deeper, more profound, meanings and ramifications</a> for the pictures.</p>

Various films are different from each other. Astia, Velvia, Kodachrome, etc. all have different characteristics and look different from one another. Many people prefer the look of a certain film. Much forum space is taken up by people who have switched to digital and now want to know how or what programs to use to convert their digital images to "that Velvia look." Or how to add grain to a digital image. The simple solution, if one wants "that Velvia look", is to shoot Velvia and scan.

<p>I am another "film and scan" guy. I have some nice digital cameras, but I don't enjoy them. There are a couple of reasons. First, I like the risk inherent in shooting film. When using highly automated digital cameras I found it too easy to simply keep clicking away until the right image popped out. With film, I take one - or maybe bracket - and then I move on - film costs money. Later it is intriguing to see how well I did. There's more at stake, more excitement. Frankly, using a highly automatic digital camera feels like sitting around playing poker for matchsticks instead of money.</p>

<p>I have an array of very different kinds of film cameras which are in and of themselves FUN. I have 120 size folders, SLRs, rangefinders, pocket point and shoots, totally manual cameras and so on. I generally go out with two or three different "style" of camera. I'll have something like a Nikon 35Ti in my pocket, and maybe a Zeiss folder for tripod work and a fast rangefinder with a great lens. The renderings and use I get from these different kinds of cameras is well in a word....FUN. There are shots I get on the street with my little P&S cameras that I just would not get with a big SLR pointed at someone.</p>

<p>And the output of a MF camera? I don't think I could afford the digital equivalent. If I shoot a roll of film at 5 o'clock, I generally will have it in the development tank after dinner, and then scanning a roll of 36 takes 1-1/2 hours from there. So, this 4 or 5 hour delayed gratification isn't insufferable to me. In fact I actually ENJOY the delay, because I have a certain anticipation about what's going to be on the film. I like that, it's part of the fun.</p>

<p>When I got my first dSLR I thought I was in hog heaven, of course. I actually sold all my film cameras and laughed at why anyone would even buy them. But within a year my shiney dSLR was on the shelf gathering dust and I wasn't taking any pictures. I was simply bored to tears by it. wasn't having any fun using it, and I wasn't very impressed by the range of what it could produce. I missed the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat, so I went back to film. I was instantly rewarded with a fun level that at times seems unending.</p>

<p>I am not a pro. I don't need to make a dime with a camera as a mere "tool." So, my only criteria is personal fun and enjoyment. Unfolding a Zeiss Super Ikonta (to gaping jaws) on the town square to take street photos is simply a hoot! The look of the color photos rolling off my old Yashica GSN simply doesn't look like any other camera/lens I have. My pocket Nikon has an amazingly sharp lens, etc. I really dig that these cameras have such identifiable personalities in their output, and in their use. But take this with a grain of salt because I am also still playing vinyl LP records on a turntable, and find them utterly more enjoyable to listen to (and play with) than CDs.</p>

<p>Mark Deneen and I may have been twins separated at birth. <br>

His views on film and digital are exactly like mine!</p>

<p>I make some half hearted attempts at shooting fresh film once I'd started scanning my old stuff, but got into digital capture very soon: scanning's a cumbersome chore, and I much prefer the immediacy and flexibility of the dslr.</p>

<p> Hard to say what other folks enjoy. You could buy a brand new corvette with all the new car things and features or a 66 stingray that does not even have air conditioning. One guy wants the new car and another wants the old car. I shoot 35mm and a DSLR. The digital camera is like a point and shoot. The meter is virtually dead on, the flash is fully automated and I can easily take 300 pictures of the same thing very quickly. Then I have a Nikon FM2n and it is beautiful to look at. Easy to carry around and fully manual. A center weighted meter that runs a bit on the hot side. No electronics in that camera except a little Lithium battery and I will recycle it in a about 5 years if it wears out. Even if it did wear out suddenly I do not need a meter that much anyway. Afterall I have snapped a few shots over the years. I use a flash meter or use the old formula for my sb600 (manual mode) to figure it out. I do not have an auto flash.<br>

(f/stop= guide number x ISO factor / distance) <br>

I usually close down 1 stop from that. The computer I use to figure that runs on pancakes and coffee. Then after it all you only know what you have on film because you have done it before and know you nailed based on experience . . Depending on how you develop and process the film it can be hours or weeks before you even see the result. Sound good to you. Well maybe not. <br>

Basically the reason I shoot film is because I enjoy it. It is more fun and challenging then the digi snapper for me. I want the negative for archival purposes and I prefer prints from the 35mm a bit more then from the digi snapper and that about sums it up. </p>

<p>It's the old "Horses vs. Cars" thing..................both have fans. Both have certain appeals.</p>

<p>But if the end result is for fast, reliable, comfortable, safe, (yeah, I know.....but I still have a horse bite on my bum!), dry, warm, cool, decent smelling, low maintenance (relatively), Etc.....Then people use CARS. </p>

<p>Film still has its place, as do horses.........but the votes are in. And horses lose.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why not just shoot digital & save a couple of steps ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe because its something that they enjoy. Maybe they like they way a film looks and its easier to scan it than to re-crate it. Maybe because they like to have physical copies of their work. I could go on all day. I'm sure film shooters are aware of digital capabilities and taken it under advisement or use it when they deem suitable.</p>

<p>Why do you want to know?</p>

<p>Les, I never said that,<em><strong> " film being technologically behind digicam as represented in your poor analogy"</strong></em> nor would I. The technologies are partly similar, and partly very different.......</p>

<p>The point being made, <em>and missed so often</em>, is that the technology supplies the tools. But it is the photographer who produces the<strong> image.</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

If you look in the tackle box of most fishing fans, you will find a lot more 'stuff' that was designed to catch the fisherman, than you will find <strong>fish.</strong> </p>

<p>Camera bags are a bit that way too...........</p>

<p><em>(And as for eye control.......it is no substitute for <strong>brain</strong> control....)</em><br>

<strong> </strong></p>

<p>Actually I did have it on my Elan......but it didn't work well with my eyeglasses. </p>

<p> The logic of saying, "specially with an L lens", escapes me. Surely you are not suggesting that the L series lenses have to have technical aids to focus which mere <strong>substitutes </strong>do not.</p>

<p>I do remember when Canon announced the old A1, that it was then that we learned how much we photographers would benefit from that camera's use of, <strong>Hexicybernetics </strong>, I think it was called.<br>

Funny thing how you never hear of that milestone anymore either.....</p>

<p>I have a access to a flatbed scanner now with intention getting a dedicated film scanner down the road. </p>

<p>Why a scanner? Because the labs in my areas just use minilabs (which is digital) or they use high end Lambdas which is also digital. </p>

<p>Obviously I need a scanner to post online, I also catalogue quick dirty scans into Lightroom so I can preview them quickly. </p>

<p>Why not just use digital? Because I care about the slow process, to me film has history and it means something to me. Digital is like going to the supermarket, film is like going to the markets, chatting to the producers and locals, buy your usual film and ask for advice to try something new. It might not be v fine grained, accurate color digital (fine dining) but the "real" lives is not like that. </p>

<p>If I just want a image and maybe in challenging environments, I may just shoot digital RAW. </p>

<p>Just in my view. Slides is most like digital - it has sharpness, has punch, is fine grained. Color neg and of course traditional b/w film has that history feel and look. </p>

<p>I have a fantastic digital camera, and an F100, but lately I've done most of my shooting with a couple on Minolta XD11s. I just like the feel of the old cameras, the tangibility of negatives, and the film (even scanned) does have a certain look.</p>

<p>In case I get wrongly interpreted. I hav a dSLR, fSLR which are both AF. But I treasure my manual focus fSLR more. Actually I think they are on the bulky side and thought what about a rangefinder!</p>

>>> Why not just shoot digital & save a couple of steps ?

 

Possibly some do not yet have a good handle on digital post-processing? Sure see a lot of photos posted here that suggests that...

Bad of me to assume there wouldn't be anyone that would actually take that seriously...

<p> One thing about a hobby is you can do it anyway you want to. Afterall it's a hobby. Just shoot away and don't worry what somebody else enjoys. </p>

<p>My main reason for film and scan is, like others', that I have a bunch of film equipment whose output quality would be hard to duplicate in digital at a reasonable price. If a magic wand made all my old film cameras digital, I'd consider waving it, but I'm not entirely sure yet.</p>

<p>One of the other nice things about film is, of course, that it remains what it is over time. I can open up the boxes of slides I took 50 years ago, or those my dad took 65 years ago, or the negatives my grandparents took 90 years ago, and need not worry whether the technology still exists to decode them. The images may fade or get scratched, or change color, but as long as it stays visible it stays a picture.</p>

<p>Digital information can last forever if you either maintain the equipment to read it or recopy it as equipment evolves, but if you do neither, it is lost even though it may remain intact. </p>