Jump to content

I'm done with film.


michael_radika

Recommended Posts

Some of you know me on here some of you don't you know the struggles I've gone through with my medium format camera finding focusing screens struggling to focus trying to find diopters for my camera to help me Focus.

 

I think I've come to a conclusion that film is no longer worth the trouble. Don't get me wrong I do love film I love processing film I love the look of film when it's printed in a dark room.

 

What I found out through all this experience is I do not like the look of film when it is scanned into Lightroom and then printed out on an inkjet printer it loses that film look.

 

I find the process of shooting the film developing the film and then scanning it and then printing it on an inkjet printer it comes up with a kind of a weird look to me that I don't like.

 

I don't have time nor the space to set up a dark room to print my film with and a enlarger and doing the whole darkroom scene it's just not going to happen.

 

Between the struggles of focusing the camera which I seem to have solved this problem with my focusing screen and I did find the correct diopter for my camera I seem to have pretty much fixed the focusing issue not 100% but pretty close.

 

I think the bottom line is you need to buy an $800 scanner you need to buy the wet mounting stuff and the film holders for the scanner you need the price of film the price of all the chemicals to develop the film and and in the the end you end up with this sort of half digital half film look that I just don't like.

 

I'm sure if I had the money and the time and the space I would love to set up a dark room and print with an enlarger with my negatives that I know would make me happy but that cannot happen I think it's time to move on to digital.

 

No rolls of film no chemicals to develop no scanner needed yes I won't get that film look that film look that I'm after. But then again the cost of film, chemicals, scanners if you want to print something really big and really nice you need to go Fork out $70 to have a drum scan done and what's the point.

 

To me old medium format and large format film don't mix well with the digital age if you have a drum scanner in your garage it could be a different story I'm not going to Fork out $50 every time I want to have something drum scanned to get some decent detail to make a large print.

 

It's been a painful expensive experience and I do love film I will always love film I love to process film I love shooting film but to me the end result of not being able to print in a darkroom just defeats the purpose I don't like scanners I don't like printing scanned images on a inkjet printer I just don't like the look.

 

I'm going to simplify my life and buy myself a Fuji xt2 and go digital.

 

I think the stubbornness of trying to hold on to film for the whole Nostalgia thing and the whole process it's just not worth it it's time to surrender and go digital and learn to like it.

 

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.

Edited by michael_radika
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Have you tried printing using a different method other than an inkjet? I shoot 6x7, scan at home on a Minolta Dimage Multi Pro, and send the file out to be printed on a ZBE Chromira printer. That printer uses RC photo paper and it produces prints that are not unlike, perhaps better, than an optical darkroom would produce. I agree that it is not inexpensive to do this but I really like the results. Two companies that I have used are West Coast Imaging and Denver Digital Imaging. Both are excellent.

 

In any case I understand your frustration but for different reasons. Film and developing are getting more and more expensive. The waiting to get the finished product back from the labs is often inconvenient. One really needs to get the shot right the first time because of this; there might not be a second opportunity. Myself, I am looking at getting an MF digital camera soon, probably the Pentax 645Z, as this would allow me to use my 6x7 lenses with an adapter. Regards.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key problem now with shooting film is finding both dependable gear and the repair resources to keep it that way. This was less a problem 10-12 years ago when I could find mint and occasionally NOS Mamiya and Bronica MF gear at fire sale prices. Bought a crap load of that stuff. Quality repair was affordable and local. Today, I no longer encourage friends to "try" film, even 35mm, when "iffy" cameras seem to be all they can turn up. Hybrid workflow never really bothered me. Scanning b&w 120 negatives with a new Nikon D7200 a few years back ironically knocked the dust off my medium format kits. Never a darkroom owner,so maybe ignorance keeps me satisfied with film scans and quality inkjet prints.

 

The whole film thing you discussed here was fraught. Really believe you'll be happier with digital, especially if you shoot thoughtfully and explore what photo editing can deliver. A different reality but not inferior to old school techniques.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You gave it a try, sought assistance with issues you encountered, weighed the results, economics and arrived at a personal conclusion. That sounds like a well thought out conclusion for you personally. Best of luck as you move forward with your plan.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have time nor the space to set up a dark room to print my film with and a enlarger and doing the whole darkroom scene

 

Without your own in-house (so-to-speak) control of the many variables in processing and printing, it's simply too hard to get Ansel Adams like results.

 

I really only cared about a few films, per se, but I still love the old cameras. It's getting harder to shoot them all the time, unfortunately.:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations on coming to a sensible conclusion!

 

Now you can allow yourself to concentrate on what should be the main purpose of photography - making pictures.

And rapidly changing software/hardware compatibility,computer graphic manipulation, a power supply to take and view pictures, and massive file management.......;)

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with a Fuji XT2, which has a family of excellent lenses to match. If you want medium-format quality in a small package with a superb collection of compatible lenses, I would suggest looking at a Sony A7Riii. It has a 42 MP sensor, no anti-aliasing filter, and along with nearly all modern cameras, auto focusing.

 

I stuck with MF film until 2007, when I had the opportunity to buy a digital back for my Hasselblad kit. Only 16 MP, the image quality is superior to film, and the work flow much simpler. When I dug it out a couple of days ago to compare a CF250 with some other lenses, I noticed that my last use was in the Spring of 2014, about the time I bought a used Leica M9. The Hasselblad saw a lot of use when 12 MP digital was the best they Nikon offer. However unless you can afford one of the 36 MP or larger backs, MF digital is no longer competitive. Focusing is no easier than with film, or even harder due to the higher demands. MF gear is still heavy, slow and expensive.

 

Software evolution is not necessarily problematic. I have been using Adobe Photoshop for over 20 years, and the human interface has changed very little. I have survived several iterations of Windows and a complete transition to OS X and Mac without serious hiccups. "Free" software is often the most expensive option if you consider the learning curve, poor continuity between versions, limited capability and poor support. Image manipulation is the name of the game in photography as an art. Rather than spend hours dodging and burning each print, you do it once in Photoshop.

 

Data (image) management is also simple if you adhere to three basic principles. Each image needs a unique name, including the directory name, to avoid duplications. It must be easily stored, preferably without renaming, in one location. Finally it must be easy to find. The operating theory is "Store once, use many." The exception to duplication would be general backups. Many database beginners try to store things by subject or use, but this is better accomplished using smart searches (queries), and key words. In time, your needs change, which leads to multiple copies under different headings, if you ignore the basics of relational data base structures. There are only so many "unique" names or titles you can devise before you begin to repeat things.

 

Adobe LightRoom is a good image management system, at least for individuals with a hundred thousand images or less. It is not scalable to multiple users or really large collections (> 100K). If you need to share, call Oracle. If you have an IT department at your disposal, Microsoft SQL Server is another option.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate all your guys responses. I haven't sent out and have somebody print it maybe I should try that like the first poster mentioned that he sends his stuff out to a lab. Maybe it's the inkjet printing that's killing it for me I really haven't narrowed it down because I don't have any other type of Prints to compare it to.

 

I process my own film here at home my black and white stuff that's not a big deal simple to do I enjoy doing that.

 

I don't own a scanner I have not invested in a scanner yet I've been paying a shop a local camera shop here a dollar a frame to scan and it's off of epson v700.

 

I'm having a hard time narrowing down what it is that's bothering me obviously it's not the film cuz I love the film I love the look of film when it's printed in a dark room I know that much. But I think when I see it on the screen scanned into Lightroom and I'm playing around with it it looks fine so maybe it's the type of printing I'm doing that's kind of destroying the look for me.

 

You know I'm I'm frustrated I hate to give up because I have a little bit of money invested in in my bronica system. I went through all the focusing issues managed to solve that and now I'm facing this this new issue.

 

I think I should take the advice of the first guy that posted them responded to my thread and send something out and seesee what see what that looks like so I have something to put side by side with my inkjet prints.

 

I have the Canon Pixma pro-100 I did print some digital files that I had and and they turned out fabulous for the digital look the printer did it a fabulous job. Then again it doesn't have that film look that I'm after but as far as the digital look goes it looked fantastic.

 

So maybe the inkjet printer is the culprit of my problems I'm going to send out and have a print made and see what it looks like. Now the drawback to sending out stuff is I have no control I'm at the mercy of the lab to achieve the look that I want I like to be able to control my printing I want to control the whole process.

 

I think I'm going to send out one of my files and have it printed and have a print sent to me and evaluate it as last effort and put the prince side by side with the inkjet and at least find out what the problem is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of you know me on here some of you don't you know the struggles I've gone through with my medium format camera finding focusing screens struggling to focus trying to find diopters for my camera to help me Focus.

 

I think I've come to a conclusion that film is no longer worth the trouble. Don't get me wrong I do love film I love processing film I love the look of film when it's printed in a dark room.

 

What I found out through all this experience is I do not like the look of film when it is scanned into Lightroom and then printed out on an inkjet printer it loses that film look.

 

I find the process of shooting the film developing the film and then scanning it and then printing it on an inkjet printer it comes up with a kind of a weird look to me that I don't like.

 

I don't have time nor the space to set up a dark room to print my film with and a enlarger and doing the whole darkroom scene it's just not going to happen.

 

Between the struggles of focusing the camera which I seem to have solved this problem with my focusing screen and I did find the correct diopter for my camera I seem to have pretty much fixed the focusing issue not 100% but pretty close.

 

I think the bottom line is you need to buy an $800 scanner you need to buy the wet mounting stuff and the film holders for the scanner you need the price of film the price of all the chemicals to develop the film and and in the the end you end up with this sort of half digital half film look that I just don't like.

 

I'm sure if I had the money and the time and the space I would love to set up a dark room and print with an enlarger with my negatives that I know would make me happy but that cannot happen I think it's time to move on to digital.

 

No rolls of film no chemicals to develop no scanner needed yes I won't get that film look that film look that I'm after. But then again the cost of film, chemicals, scanners if you want to print something really big and really nice you need to go Fork out $70 to have a drum scan done and what's the point.

 

To me old medium format and large format film don't mix well with the digital age if you have a drum scanner in your garage it could be a different story I'm not going to Fork out $50 every time I want to have something drum scanned to get some decent detail to make a large print.

 

It's been a painful expensive experience and I do love film I will always love film I love to process film I love shooting film but to me the end result of not being able to print in a darkroom just defeats the purpose I don't like scanners I don't like printing scanned images on a inkjet printer I just don't like the look.

 

I'm going to simplify my life and buy myself a Fuji xt2 and go digital.

 

I think the stubbornness of trying to hold on to film for the whole Nostalgia thing and the whole process it's just not worth it it's time to surrender and go digital and learn to like it.

 

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.

 

 

I have to agree scanned negatives look crap adn if printed as digital they look even worse. The only way to really enjoy waht film can do is to have your own darkroom and wet print.

 

NOW... going over to digital will be just as frustrating because now you have to relearn everything as if starting over using a computer darkroom. Besides the tiny view finders on these digital cameras making it literally impossible to do any critical focusing, the exposures are a real PITA and im finding most are just a compromise. I have 3 computers adn 2 tablets to view my digital stuff on. One monitor says its fine, another says its too dark, and the third says its too red. My tablets dont agree at all. Forget about printing... thats another crap shoot. Sometimes pics print nicely, certain papers are jsut plain miserable, inks are expensive and none really come out as evenly as my wet prints, still another compromise. I started taking my digitals to Walgreens and print em on their $100,000 printers. its much better but still lacking that certain glow and dimention. Will I have them custom printed?... NO FK%$# WAY, its jsut too expensive adn no guarantee they will come out as seen on the monitor. So Im sticking to my film for my serious photography and leave the digital for the knock around stuff. If my hard drive drops dead adn I lose all my pix Im not gunna cry.

 

Anyway.... what film stuff do you have? If you need to unload it all I can send you my address and Id gladly pay the postage.

 

hahahahahahahaha just stay analog with the film, and leave the digitals to your doctor!

Edited by paul ron
  • Like 3
The more you say, the less people listen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

NOW... going over to digital will be just as frustrating because now you have to relearn everything as if starting over using a computer darkroom. Besides the tiny view finders on these digital cameras making it literally impossible to do any critical focusing, the exposures are a real PITA and im finding most are just a compromise. I have 3 computers adn 2 tablets to view my digital stuff on. One monitor says its fine, another says its too dark, and the third says its too red. My tablets dont agree at all. Forget about printing... thats another crap shoot. Sometimes pics print nicely, certain papers are jsut plain miserable, inks are expensive and none really come out as evenly as my wet prints, still another compromise. I started taking my digitals to Walgreens and print em on their $100,000 printers. its much better but still lacking that certain glow and dimention. Will I have them custom printed?... NO FK%$# WAY, its jsut too expensive adn no guarantee they will come out as seen on the monitor. So Im sticking to my film for my serious photography and leave the digital for the knock around stuff. If my hard drive drops dead adn I lose all my pix Im not gunna cry.

 

 

Hmm... I'll say it again...

"but digital is supposed

to be free..."

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a 6"x4" print is large enough, a Canon Selphy dye-sub printer is the way to go. Prints are high gloss, like machine prints, on a heavy stock. It takes less than 30 seconds per print, at abut $0.20 ea. The ink never dries out.

 

A Canon Pixma Pro-100 is a very good printer, with dye-based ink as opposed to pigment-based ink in the Pro-10 I own and use. The Canon will match any color you have on the screen, with proper calibration. If you start from a film scan, the results will resemble film. If you start from a digital image (more accurate), that's what it will look like.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a 6"x4" print is large enough, a Canon Selphy dye-sub printer is the way to go. Prints are high gloss, like machine prints, on a heavy stock. It takes less than 30 seconds per print, at abut $0.20 ea. The ink never dries out.

 

A Canon Pixma Pro-100 is a very good printer, with dye-based ink as opposed to pigment-based ink in the Pro-10 I own and use. The Canon will match any color you have on the screen, with proper calibration. If you start from a film scan, the results will resemble film. If you start from a digital image (more accurate), that's what it will look like.

 

 

I print mostly black and white stuff what type of paper are you using I've been using the ilford Gallery prestige gold fibre silk or something like that.

 

Course I just got the printer not that familiar with it and I cannot seem to get Canon Studio to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can do a simple temporary darkroom, if you really want to.

I print in a "small" half bath, about 3x7.

  • Durst M600 6x6 enlarger on the toilet.
     
    • The key is an easy to disassemble and store enlarger, like the Durst.
       
    • Or if you have a larger bathroom, an enlarger on a microwave cart (which my friend does). She just rolls the cart with the enlarger on it, into the bathroom. Easy and fast.
       
    • In one of my prior apartments, I put a sheet of 1/2 plywood over the tub, and set the enlarger on it.

    [*]Honeywell rocking print tray or Cibachrome/Unicolor drum on the counter to develop the paper.

    • In my old apartment I had a small folding table where I set up the trays of chemicals.

    [*]Wash and dry in the kitchen.

    [*]Light sealing is more tricky.

     

    • For the window, I used double layers of black plastic sheets on the window, and printed at night. Some have used fitted plywood panels in the window.
       
    • And a rolled up towel at the bottom of the door.

What I am trying to say is that it isn't difficult.

And the easier you make the process, the faster and easier it is to do. Like my friend using the microwave cart for the enlarger. Zero enlarger assembly/disassembly time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love film and the whole wet process. That said, I haven't fired up the darkroom in over a decade. If I live long enough to retire, maybe then. Wet process was always time consuming and has gotten expensive. Digital has raised the bar for color work. I never got the results for wet process color that I can get with digital. I could do a perfectly decent b&w print on my old i9900, and can probably do as well on my PRO-100, but why? Who's the audience? I don't know a single person that would look twice at a b&w print. An Epson scanner can do an OK job with medium format, but it's still no film scanner. It is, however, all I can afford. When I have the time and money to do b&w film and wet printing for myself, I'll do it. I think you've reached a reasonable conclusion. BTW, we used to process film and print in bathrooms, kitchens, college dorm rooms and laundry rooms. It's certainly doable, but the setup and cleanup adds that much more time to an already time consuming process. Back when I did film there were fewer distractions. No cell phone. The internet was a shadow of what it is today- hey, remember Compuserve? I had a lot more "hobby" money available as I worked more hours and healthcare was vastly cheaper. Most photographers are just too busy to mess with film.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I print mostly black and white stuff what type of paper are you using I've been using the ilford Gallery prestige gold fibre silk or something like that.

I have mainly used Canon Pro Luster paper since getting the Pro-10 in Spring, 2017, 8.5"x11" almost exclusively. For some odd reason, Canon doesn't make 13" paper, but I've used Epson Photo Matte in that size with good results. I prefer a matte surface for B&W for matting and framing, but either surface seems to work well. I have some Canon Pro Luster in 17" size, but I don't have much call for prints of that size.

 

I calibrate my monitor and printer with an X-Rite Color Munki Photo, which has a diffraction grating and is good for both emissive and reflective measurements. The difference was surprisingly small. I think pigmented inks may be less dependent on the surface than dye inks, due to lower absorption. My daughter-in-law uses a Pro-100 to print from water colors, in a very convincing, transparent manner. I do mainly landscapes, which benefit from darker, more intense colors, at which the Pro-10 excels.

 

Most of my B&W prints were done using an Epson 2200, also calibrated (with an Eye-One Pro, no longer supported). I prefer "process" black rather then B&W only inks, for a warmer tone and wider dynamic range than Black/Grey only in that printer. The results closely resemble kodak Polyconstrast paper from my early (darkroom) years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And rapidly changing software/hardware compatibility,computer graphic manipulation, a power supply to take and view pictures, and massive file management.......;)

 

- All that equally applies to the (IMO pointless) work flow of shooting film, only to end up scanning it to a digital file.

 

And what 'rapidly changing' software/hardware compatibility? I have files that I scanned from film about 20 years ago, and pictures from my first digital camera, that are totally viewable today on any common computer platform. In fact I can now view them on my phone, which was impossible/unheard of when I took them.

 

"Besides the tiny view finders on these digital cameras making it literally impossible to do any critical focusing.."

 

- I don't know what digital cameras you've been using, but a DSLR probably offers the best viewing/focusing experience of any camera ever made.

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m trying to get Vue Scan to update a scanner to an updated desktop and updated Windows.

Real Pain in the ass every time. Multiple downloads, new shorter larger USB cable, still no workie.

Works great when it works but driver/software upgrades always a p.i.t.a.

You have a point about scanning the film though....

Edited by Moving On
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Canon Pixma Pro-100 is a very good printer, with dye-based ink as opposed to pigment-based ink in the Pro-10 I own and use. The Canon will match any color you have on the screen, with proper calibration. If you start from a film scan, the results will resemble film. If you start from a digital image (more accurate), that's what it will look like.

 

I use the Pro-100 myself and it consumes ink like crazy. However, the colors usually match a factory calibrated monitor without much elbow work. I heard, the higher Pro's, i.e. Pro-10 or Pro-1 are more economical in terms of ink usage, but haven't used one myself. In the end, sending the files to Walgreens for bulk printing seems both economical and also reasonably high quality. Here is a review and comparison among the familiar commercial printing places:

 

Picture Perfect: Choose the Best Photo Printing Services

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations! Ten years ago there was a valid argument for using film but with the latest ~50mp DSLR's and digital MF it does not make sense shooting film smaller than 8x10.

But, you get what you pay for, if you want to match the quality that you are use to expect to pay $2000+ and go with full frame and good glass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A medium format scanner, like a Nikon LS-8000 (9000) has much better film handling than an enlarger, a lens optimized for 1:1 reproduction, and 4000 dpi resolution. You get an 8500x8500 pixel scan from a Hasselblad negative, and nearly 8800x8800 scan from a Rolleiflex, if you crop to the film gate image. Unless you use a vacuum platen, 8x10" paper deviates from flatness about 2 mm, which makes it impossible to achieve grain-sharpness across the entire field. I do not look at the "good old days" through rose-colored glasses. In the day, I took a hard look at the process limitations, but there was nothing to do but live with them. In hindsight, there is a tendency to look at things way you wished, rather than the way they were.

 

Don't get me started about projected slides, with cupped film in cardboard mounts and unsophisticated lenses. Perhaps people sing praises of this process remembering high contrast colors, not the soft appearance of the results at arm's length.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right shooting film what is the point of scanning film if you're shooting film to achieve the film look.

 

I'm no expert in Lightroom not by any stretch of the imagination. My question is through scanning processing in Lightroom and then printing how close can you get to to achieving what a film print looks like on film paper. 60% 70% 80% maybe it's just my lack of skills that I can't achieve the look that I want maybe it's a Chiva Bowl but I don't have the ability to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...