Jump to content

"Shooting 35mm in a world of Digital post-production"


Recommended Posts

<p>

 

<p>I shoot a lot of film these days on my Leica M6. When I shoot digitally with my Nikons, I always shoot in RAW so I naturally make adjustments (curves, white balance, highlights, etc) part of my workflow. When I scan my 35mm film, I always hesitate to tweak anything. I'm not sure it is justified as people have been touching up film shots for years. But in the age of digital post-production, I find that no mater how great an exposure, how great the light, and how great the Leica lens, there is always something that can sweeten the image.<br>

What are everyone's thoughts on digital post production of film photos and our need to tweak everything?</p>

<p>Seth</p>

 

</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>very nice post</p>

<p>i think about that also</p>

<p>well, i find myself also working hard on digital and minimizing any post-processing on film.</p>

<p>somehow i think film has it's own soul, and one is not supposed to tweak it a lot. Also it really shows much closer to what i want to see<br>

rui</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I am in the same position, I think. I also find that when I look at a digital image, I'm looking at colors, contrast, and resolution. With film, I look at the picture, the moment. Perhaps it does not require much processing...</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I just tweak them to my heart's content just as I do with the digital (would you know from my gallery which ones were film pictures?).</p>

<p>I think it's about whether in photography you are looking for photos or for challenge. There's nothing wrong about challenges: trying to come up with the most beautiful picture with minimum processing is good for developing shooting techniques. But I'd call it more a challenge than anything else; it's like with athletics -- you don't swim 50 m as fast as you can because you have something urgent to do on the other side of the pool, you swim to show that you can.</p>

<p>But if you have a final concept in mind, then any means is allowed, be it digital, chemical, or any imaginable photoshopping.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don`t think PP should be seen. Therefore my scanned film is treated with the same PP as digi files.<br>

The advantage of digi is having neutral or saturated colors, high contrast or low. Why should film that is digitised be different? Use a low contrast film and make what you want out of it later same a shooting raw, sort of.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm sold on digital post processing. I use digital capture (RD-1s) and film cameras, with the film developed and scanned to disk. Digital post processing is the greatest ... I grew up dyed in Dektol and Microdol, but I am a lot happier now to do the thing on a PC. I still don't do much on the PC that I didn't do in a darkroom, but it is just easier and more convenient. </p>

<p>I don't do my own developing and scanning, so my concern is the continued availability of quality processing labs. I worry that as mass-market film dies (and it will), one will have to look to more specialized and expensive labs, or do it onself.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm ok with it depending on the situation - sometimes, there is no need for it but when warranted, I don't have a problem.</p>

<p>For color film (that is developed and scanned to CD at CVS), I post-process a bit in Photoscape (typically levels and contrast) - they do such a lousy job now, I'm seeking a new place to get my color film developed.</p>

<p>I recently acquired an Epson V300 scanner and am learning the ins-and-outs of that. I have scanned some slides recently and had to do some adjustments in Photoscape as well. I may try Vuescan and do my adjustments there instead.</p>

<p>- Ray</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Tweaking a film scan digitally is just another way of tweaking a print exposure from that same original negative, especially in black and white.</p>

<p>Although either done well is appealing, I think much more satisfaction comes from a well-conceived and modified hand made enlarged photographic print. A lot of the creativity occurs at that time, as we cannot always realize our visualised scene solely through the estimated film exposure and result. The projected print manipulations (or their digital analogue) also allow us to alter what the negative contains, in an artistic manner.</p>

<p>Such hands on creativity and freedom is one of the most satisfying aspects of photography.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You tweek this and tweek that. I'd like to nail my exposures so my wet prints look great with a minimum of fuss but it seem there's most often a bit of dodging to be done. Scanned film at minimum needs a levels adjustment in PS to put those tones where they ought be.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>My feeling is that, as soon as you scan your film negative, it has become a digital file. I don't have any sense of preserving film purity. I process all of my scanned photos in photoshop and/or irfanview before posting.<br />Unfortunately, I don't know how to enlarge and print film the 'old-fashioned' way, wish that I did and that I had the time and space to do so. The internet in general and PN in particular has given us all such a great opportunity to exhibit our 'art', the only catch is that it all has to be digital and post-processing is a necessity.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I work 100% with film (mainly Leica M) and Ive never seen a scanned film image - especially negs - that dont need some post processing. Film doesnt have "purity" it merely has different qualities and charateristics to digital; and these qualities and charateristics can be improved, emphasised or exaggerated through post processing to "produce" an image. The neg is merely a starting point...</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I post process anything I think needs it.....film or digital. Heck, I burned and dodged like a madman when I did wet printing, and digital editting just makes it so much easier to do. There's almost always a little tweak here and there that can add to the image's look.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The scanner used to scan film is a digital camera. So, once you have the scanned digital image I don't see any difference at all between the two when it comes to post-processing. Your just less limited with PS than with film processing. My frame of reference is Ansel Adams who supposedly made some 60 plus prints of one of his favorite negatives and "never did get it right." And how long did that take him? He might have succeeded with PS. Or now, Cartier-Bresson who always had others develop and print his negatives. As a result, he insisted that no one else crop his carefully crafted, in-camera cropped images. If he had had access to PS and digital scans and was willing to crop after the fact himself, he surely would have done it. In fact, there's no way he could have gotten all of his film shots exactly the way he wanted them to look, especially the on-the-fly decisive moments. That means that he threw away perhaps thousands of negatives because they were not framed perfectly when he took them. Imagine the great shots that he might have produced if he had been able to crop them slightly or even substantially. What a loss. Well, we'll never know, will we? </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"What's the difference in doing it in Photoshop?"</p>

<p>Doing in PS is "Easier". So some people feel guilty doing it with a click of the mouse. Some need to sweat it out to get that sense of satisfaction. I guess.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Yes, we do what we can, and we do it because we can. Think of the purist color slide worker. What you show is basically what happened to the emulsion in-camera. This is the restriction and the challenge of the color slide. (OK, there are some processing tricks and sandwiching, but I'm talking purist.)<br>

But without that restriction we are going to tweak the image anywhere and anyhow we can.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>My best friend is my Konica-Minolta dedicated scanner. It is the machine that puts my negatives and slides into my digital darkroom, the only darkroom I have ever used that was mine. Using Photoshop I have revitalized slides and color negatives. I have found life for film shots I thought to be dead losers. Digital post-processing has been my liberation. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seth, I shoot film exclusively and don't "tweak" my photos for two reasons:<br>

<br>

1) I don't like post processing. I'm a photographer because I like taking pictures, not sitting in front of a computer; <br>

<br>

2) When I take a picture, I want it to be as good as it can be. I try to pay attention to things that might need correcting and

do it "in camera."<br>

<br>

I don't do my own processing and for exhibits, I go over the negatives with the lab printer, relying on her expertise (she's a

great printer) for any needed corrections, usually not beyond a bit of burning and cropping. The prints are made through an

enlarger.<br>

<br>

In my opinion,there's nothing "sacred" about film and tweaking it or not. Like everything, it's a matter of personal taste and

preference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I shoot both 35mm and 120. I make prints in a wet darkroom. It's always been my desire to have my photographs reflect exactly what was in front of me at the time of exposure. Life is by no means perfect and therefore I don't expect my photographs to be perfect. The more tweaking a image gets, the more it's about the photographer and his/her idealized concept of the images content. This is OK with me. I just would rather keep my pictures more about content then about whatever technical skill I may have in the steps from exposure to final print. To this end, my pictures are about as un-tweaked as possible. I don't burn or dodge or tone (except for the ocassional selinium tone) and I only print the full negative. What I see when I take a picture is exactly how I want the print to look.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In over 40 years of using slide film, I never once thought of it in terms of purity.</p>

<p>Slide film always has distinctive color and contrast characteristics. They are built in in the factory. I prefer a more neutral palette such as Fuji Astia over Velvia.</p>

<p>That is probably why my adding digital to my equipment choices was so easy. A RAW file typically has high color accuracy and neutral contrast. To some it looks blah. To me I like like the fact that I am now free to express myself. </p>

<p>When scanning slide film I worry less about changing the color palatte than trying to bring out shadow detail. I think I am trying to create what I see on the light table.</p>

<p>Like many others I don't think there is only one way to skin a cat. </p>

<p>It is nice to have all of these options.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In the past I always felt that an extra minute in the camera (composing, looking for distracting items, adding some fill) was far better than spending extra hours in the darkroom. I've known people that have been quite careless shooters...often using the excuse that with street shooting in particular they didn't have time to be 'careful' while shooting...who afterwords would brag about the 3 hours they spent to get that perfect print.<br>

I was always a careful shooter. Came from my early wedding work I imagine. The studio owner would give us 3 36 exp rolls if the wedding was being shot in 35mm, or 5 rolls of 120 if we were using the 645 Mamiya. (this was in the late 70's).<br>

I quickly learned to make every shot count if possible.<br>

The result was that when shooting for myself I shoot carefully. In the 'old' days I seldom spent more than 20 minutes on any one print in the darkroom.<br>

Now I shoot film, scan and digitally print, to the same effect. Seldom do I spend more than 10 or 15 minutes fixing/adjusting a print in photoshop. <br>

I have better things to do than spend hours in front of monitor.</p>

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...