Who is enjoying shooting 35mm film?

I feel guilty for having started that rediculous thread on here that has reached almost 600 postings. I certainly did

not mean to start a riot regarding film versus digital - to the contrary. The funny thing is with all the multitude of

words and energy that have gone into that thread - I am more confused and none the wiser! By some of the

comments on there I am

not the only one!

 

However I will try again here with a fresh approach and see if we can get some sensible answers without all the

techno mumbo jumbo that just confounds everybody!

 

I am wondering who is predominantly shooting 35mm film and really enjoying the process???

 

I must say though - after just bagging the majority of what was said on the other thread - I did glean something off

there that really got me thinking along this line of thought.

 

Somebody mentioned Magnum and the Magnum photographers. I got to thinking that these guys have taken some

of the most awesome pictures in the world - some that all of us would recognise. Probably the most famous one is

the portrait of the young Afghani girl (she was 17 at the time) with those huge haunted green eyes peering out from

under her veil.

 

Guess what - nearly all of these shots have been and probably still are taken on 35mm film cameras. I know Steve

McCurry -

the guy from Magnum who photographed Sharbat Gula, (the Afghani girl) - has taken all his beautiful shots on an old

35mm Nikon camera. So somebody forgot to tell these guys that digital is better and they are humping around

archaic lumps of junk - I am glad they didn't listen because their results do the talking.

 

In other words - Thousands of beautiful pictures have been taken (and hopefully will still be) on 35mm film. Travel

books, coffe table books, wildlife photos, reportage etc. Just because it is old technology now - it still exists and

has the capacity to capture and document many more wonderful images from the world around us.

 

For this reason I have sold off my Pentax 67ii system and have ordered a 180mm prime and a 85mm prime for my

F5. I mentioned on the other thread that I am going back to Asia (mainly Cambodia and Laos), next year for at least

6-8 months. The thought of lumping around the big brick with me was the clincher - and also I plan to do a lot of

human interest shots and the F5 is much more suited to that style.

 

I have just come back into photography after a break of about a decade or so. I do not know all the ramifications of

documenting all my stuff when I return, but I would like to hear from others on here who shoot predominantly 35mm

(hopefully some F5 users), and how you go about scanning and documenting those shots.

 

I hesitate to mention Ken Rockwell on here again because it was his article that I quoted on my other question that

started off that whole big hullabaloo and turned into the biggest thread ever on this site!!!@$%^&!!

 

However he says in the article that I quoted from, that he loves film and 35mm because he can drop it into the lab,

have it processed, have prints

made and high res scans to duplicate the originals. This is a same day service and he said it is wonderful - no

poking around for hours processing raw files on the computer - he can enjoy his evenings because he knows that

when he takes the shot on 35mm film, the camera has already done the work and the lab just takes a digital scan of

that.

 

So I need to know from other 35mm users - is that what some of you do, or is it better to get a high grade scanner

and do ones own scanning????

 

I rang a big lab last week in Perth, Western Australia (I am out in the desert so nothing out here), and they do a

similiar service to what Ken talked about - all at a very reasonable price. They process your E6 film, give you a 6x4

print of each shot and do 18meg scans of each shot and put them all on a disk. All for a very reasonable amount of

money.

 

Would love to hear from others who are enjoying shooting 35mm film using this system - and from those who are

scanning at home - and if so what equipment you recommend.

 

Now please if I have said anything that is technically incorrect (I probably did because I am only an amateur and not

a scientist like the guys on the other thread), please let it ride and don't take it as a challenge to turn this thread into

another scientific slanging match.

 

I am asking a serious legitimate question and would really like some constructive comments from lots of the learned

folk who post on here. I am not looking for an argument or trying to be contentious.

 

Cheers - Phil

When I'm taking pictures for my own enjoyment I take 35mm slides and view them with a hand held viewer. The camera is very portable and the viewing simple. I only scan something if I want to e-mail it or put it on Photonet.

I shoot mostly medium format and digital. Most of the time, it involves planned projects, and I spend a lot of time immersed in scanning, post-processing in Photoshop and printing. But every now and then, I grab my Olympus OM-1 and a couple of rolls of film and go out the door to shoot walkaround stuff, subjects of opportunity. It's fun, and it has the effect, to use a wine tasting anology, of cleansing the photographic palate. I get the film processed and printed at a local one-hour lab that I trust not to scratch my negatives. Most of the prints go into a file box. But, every now and then, I get a Keeper, so it's back to the scanner and break time is over........

I am still enjoying the 35mm films, especially negative films and don't feel to switch over digitals at all. you can see my portfolio, every shot posted here is taken with my 35mm SLR camera.... <p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photos/Pankaj%20Purohit"><b>Click to see my portfolio</a><div></div>

It doesn't matter what everyone else shoots with. It matters what you shoot with.

 

I don't understand why it concerns you if you get results you want. I have 35mm images (and other formats) I scan and I have gone to digital because the process of scanning is tedious and the results aren't impressive enough for me to warrant the time. I am proud of anyone that pursues a process that they enjoy and get results they are impressed with. It sounds like you are trying to convince yourself and others that your process is superior,it may or may not be but just be happy and go shooting.

I shoot some 35mm but usully lean towards medium format for the majority of my photography. I haven't made the leap to serious digital yet and at age 70 probably won't. But I love it all and beauty is beauty regardless of how it's captured.

<p><i>"However he says in the article that I quoted from, that he loves film and 35mm because he can drop it into the lab, have it processed, have prints made and high res scans to duplicate the originals."</i></p>

 

<p>I shoot film because I like and enjoy using it. End of story. All of the other nitpicking reasons invented to support one side or another of the digital/film "debate" pale in comparison to that one simple reason. Your quote here is simply another one of these invented issues. If you want, you can shoot digital, drop your memory card off at a quality processor and have prints the same day too. You don't have to "sit in front of the computer for hours" if you don't want to. Where's the difference?</p>

 

<p>To answer your further question, I do use a hybrid process, scanning and post-processing myself? Why? For the same reason that I don't just drop off my CF card for prints when I shoot digitally. I want better control and better quality, and I've proven to myself that this is the best way for me to have that control and quality. And I LOVE being able to work this way, whether digitally or with film - I use and very much enjoy both.</p>

 

<p>The bottom line here is simply - quite worrying about how everyone else feels about things and decide for yourself how you prefer to work. Don't sell equipment because you saw someone else's work in a different format, and don't go film or digital because so-and-so thinks it's best. Find what YOU like and what suits your needs, desires and preferences and then go out and enjoy. I know I do.</p>

 

<p>Scott</p>

I now mostly shoot 35mm color film with my F6.. My family doesn't give me the time to compose with MF. And I scan with a Nikon 9000 scanner using SilverFast. I believe to get the best results from color negative film, one needs to do their own scanning. I often include a picture of a stepped grey card after taking a picture of my subject, particularly when the subject is in shade or there is unusual lighting. Using negafix in SilverFast, I then can modify a film profile to come up with a custom profile for a particular film+lens+scanner+ligthing combination. The result is accurate color representation. This is better IMHO than sending the film out to a scanning service, at least for color film.

 

I've been doing much research in digital photography, and believe that I probably know enough to make a sound purchase, and can go up the learing curve with enjoyment. But with my investment in film, I see no reason to switch. After all, I'm not doing this for a living, so I can afford to take my time and enjoy.

Philip,

 

For Asia traveling, film makes perfect sense, especially since you have an F-5. I use my F-100 (17mm Tokina AF, 24mm, 35mm, and 85mm) whenever I travel to Asia for vacation. I shoot film along with a Canon digital P & S camera. As for film processing, I send my film to Kodak for processing and have them scan it onto a PhotoCD. That way I have access to a digital file. In the event that I have a need to scan a higher quality file at a larger size then 8 X 10 (the limits of the PhotoCD in my opinion) I use my Canon FS4000US 35mm scanner.

I personally find that workflow to work best for me. The electrical outlet and problems of having continuous electricity is still a problem throughout Asia, which forces my hand to still shoot film as film is widely available in Asia.

I am really really enjoying 35mm film right now. I always have and I always will! I think 35mm is at its top quality right now. I can get the best of both worlds when I shoot film. I can shoot film and have prints made or take some beautiful slides or I can shoot negatives or slides and have them scanned and edit them on the computer. When I have scans done I just have the lab do them for me. They are good enough for me. I think nothing can be the colors, the depth and the quality of film. I was just recently looking over a local photographer's work(all 8x10 Prints) that uses a Canon 40D and I thought to myself these colors are really really off. I know that there are many reasons that this could be so but...they would have been ok to the average person. It just hit me (this is starting to happen all the time as I have become very serious about photography on film) that once again 35mm (even though some pros think that it is too small and prefer medium format) is pretty much the best way to caputre pictures. Look at Kodachrome. To me that is THE BEST film that ever was/is available. The depth of it is un-real. When I look at Kodachromes of my travels they seem to take me right back in time as if i were right there again. I really think 35mm film is a gem and it is a shame that is being waste since the shift to digital. In the last year I have only counted 4 people that use 35mm. Only one is someone I know personally.

""""Guess what - nearly all of these shots have been and probably still are taken on 35mm film cameras. I know

Steve McCurry - the guy from Magnum who photographed Sharbat Gula, (the Afghani girl) - has taken all his beautiful

shots on an old 35mm Nikon camera. So somebody forgot to tell these guys that digital is better and they are

humping around archaic lumps of junk - I am glad they didn't listen because their results do the talking"""".

 

Steve McCurry took the Afgan girl shot quite some time ago (80's). He did not need to worry about the digital is

better thing back then. However in Steve McCurry workshops currently he does use and teach digital photography as

well as film. He still is using Nikon products. I understand he loves the Nikon F100 but that is even after the Afgan

shot.

 

 

"""However he says in the article that I quoted from, that he loves film and 35mm because he can drop it into the lab,

have it processed, have prints made and high res scans to duplicate the originals. This is a same day service and he

said it is wonderful - no poking around for hours processing raw files on the computer - he can enjoy his evenings

because he knows that when he takes the shot on 35mm film, the camera has already done the work and the lab

just takes a digital scan of that"""".

 

Many people use a lab for scanning. You just have to try it out and see if it fits for you. I tried film scanning at home

but it was to time consuming for me so I got rid of my scanner after a year. All the pro lab services in my area are

very expensive so I go to CostCo for scanning. Low Rez files. I also shoot a D200 a lot. It's great and solves a lot of

problems for me...Oh, Ken Rockwell buys and shoot digital camera's..He loves the Nikon D40 but owns other more

expensive digital camera's...So he is actually a film+digital guy like many people. Kind of like me I guess only I don't

spend as much as he does...

I shoot both and enjoy film because I like the cameras I have that use film. My work looks the same on film or digital. The simple truth is good photography has little to do with cameras, lenses and media. This polarization of one over the other seems absurd to me. Perhaps it's just easier to keep yammering about film vs. digital, brand A vs brand B, instead of making compelling images. Pick up a camera, put on a lens, put in a roll of film or digital media.......get to work.

Phil -

 

There are several reason why some of those photographers stick to film, and the Afghani girl's picture illustrates a prime example. Think about being on assignment in a third world country, going places where power, if available at all, might be only for a couple of hours each day. Charging your D-SLR batteries, much less the battery in the almost required laptop, could be iffy at best and maybe won't happen at all. The batteries in the old SLR cameras lasted months to years, not a few days like the rechargables in the "modern" digital SLR's. In fact, the really old SLR's were all mechanical - you were still able to shoot even if the battery was dead, you just didn't have a working meter (and most of those guys carried a hand-held meter to cover that situation). So for many types of assignment film still not only works fine, but is a necessity.

 

Also, as the scans that were posted show, film and a good scanner results in an image every bit as good as digital can provide. Get away from the "pixel peaping" on a monitor at high magnification and look at finished prints and you will see that the average digital has no advantage in image quality except perhaps at high ISO's.

 

To be sure, digital has its advantages - for one, you KNOW you got a picture and that the camera is functioning okay. And you can't beat digital for speed to the end result (which is why the press turned to digital long ago - speed was always more important than quality there). But the bottom line is, use the right tool for the job, and if your assignment or what you photograph doesn't require one or the other, use whatever best amuses you. Ignore the diehard ideologues who argue over theoretical dribble, film works fine and produces every bit as good a final print. Use it happily, or use digital, or use both as I do.

 

Jim

Great answers - I am really enjoying this thread. Benny, Patrick, Jim have captured the essence of what I was

enquiring about - thanks. A few of you must have missunderstood what I was asking.

 

I am not seeking kudos or needing people to give me the 'ok' to shoot film or not. I have decided to go down that

road already. I am seeking how others deal with shooting 35mm in todays digital age. Any more technical stuff on

scanners, scanning, the best scanner to buy for home use etc will be great!

 

The minimum sized digital scan needed for good quality reproduction digitally. For example - the lab I rang in Perth

do a high res scan of 18 meg. I know nothing about digital photography - what does this equate to in regards to

similiar shot on a DSLR? Is 18 meg enough, and if not would I get a bigger/better file if I were to invest in a home

scanner??

 

Phil

"Is 18 meg enough, and if not would I get a bigger/better file if I were to invest in a home scanner?? "

 

It's not clear what you need the scan for- only you know that. A 16 bit scan gives you more latitude to do edits. That doubles scan size. A 2000dpi scan of 35mm should be about 30megs (8 bit)- 4000dpi at 16 bit (what I do) gives you about 120mb scans. That said there isn't 4000dpi worth of information in most of my scans so I downsize later.

 

I'd buy a fast scanner where you can do the entire roll like the Coolscan 5000. Otherwise if you do any quantity at all a film-based workflow is unreasonable. That's what I concluded, thousands of scans later with my Canon FS4000US. I learned a lot but it was time to move on to a DSLR.

Philip,

 

I don't mean to sound petulant, but if you want technical details, then ask for them, and leave off all of the

philosophical stuff and Ken Rockwell quotes with silly rationales for doing one thing or another. Otherwise, you

generate exactly what you generated in your first posting, as it looks like you're after justifications or

additional philosophizing from the rest of us. That said...

 

In order for you to decide how you want to work with film, you first need to do some learning. You say "I know

nothing about digital photographs..." - but if you're going to work with scans, either yours or a labs, you'd

best get to learning. To start, 18 meg doesn't really tell us anything. Is it 18 megs of compressed jpeg (which

might be OK, though I'd personally rather not start with lossy compression) or 18 megs of TIFF, in which case

it's certainly not a high res scan.

 

As Roger alludes to, that still might be enough - depending on what you want to do with those bits. Web display?

Small prints? Large prints? Each have differing requirements.

 

To illustrate - a 16 bit 35mm scan @ 4000 dpi generates a TIFF in the neighborhood of 120 MBytes, or a jpeg of...

who knows as it depends on the amount of compression used - none of which still tells you what you need to know.

Ask the lab what pixel dimensions they're talking about, or what resolution you're getting and you start to get

closer to the kind of information you need. If I know, for example, that I have a file that's 5500x3600 pixels,

then I know what I really have.

 

You also need to understand that scan quality is not all about resolution. You're going to care about things

like color accuracy and dynamic range as well, and here 18megs tells us less.

 

I'd recommend you start by taking a look at Wayne Fulton's excellent scanning resource site at:

http://www.scantips.com . Start with his "Scanning Basics 101" section, and go on from there. With a bit more

background, you can begine to generate some more informed and specific questions for us and for any lab you

intend to use.

 

Good luck,

 

Scott

I enjoy looking at negatives and slides for some reason, so I definitely enjoy shooting 35mm film. I also love trying different kinds of film and experimenting, comparing results, etc so it's fun!

 

I would really like to try medium format one day...

Back when I first started into photography, well meaning people would say, "Shoot slides, that is what the professionals use." (I later found out the reason they did that is because that is what submissions editors wanted and what pre-press was set up for.) So I shot slides. At that time to get prints from slides one had to make an internegative or use cibachrome. That was a bit costly so I bought and used a Vivitar slide copier using Polaroid film. It finally dawned on me that I wanted prints so why was I using slide film? I switched to negative film to get prints directly eliminating the middle man so to speak. . If you want digital files, why not eliminate the middle man of film and scanning? Take the photo with a digital camera and you have it. <P>

 

Watch old newsreels of World Series baseball games or prize fights and what cameras do you see the pro photographers using? Large format Speed Graphics using 4x5 inch film is what. Do you think the pros switched from large format to small format 35mm film because the quality was better?. They did it for the convenience of small format realizing that it is the content that most people are interested in not the quality. It is the content of the Afghani girl photo, the eyes, that captivate you. If that photo was done with a large or even medium format, you would really be blown away by the increased tonal qualities of the photo and the content would still be there. Digital cameras are used almost exclusively by journalistic, documentary and reportage photographers. They are easy to carry, quick to shoot and enable a photographer to shoot a lot of photographs quickly. The digital format enables photographers to download and send pictures to clients and editors extremely quickly. <P>

 

You have to remember that Magnum photographers used film because that is all they had. I'm sure many of the newr ones are using digital. Here is what one magnum photographer has to say:<P>

 

<a href="http://www.shutterbug.net/techniques/pro_techniques/0506protalk/"> David Alan Harvey</a> <P>

 

In the days of film, most people would take photos and then, drop the film off at the lab and take whatever the lab gave them. There were a small number that thought that snapping the shutter was only 1/2 the job and would set up their own darkrooms to get the best print possible. "The negative is the score, the print is the performance" - Ansel Adams. You use the camera to get the best negative possible and then use the darkroom to get the best print possible.<P>

 

No one ever looked down on me because I did my own darkroom work. Any photo can be enhanced with a bit of dodging ,burning, cropping etc. For some reason people seem to look down on people who enhance their photo with image editing. I can do in minutes in Photoshop, what used to take me hours to do in my darkroom, if at all. Perhaps if it only takes a few minutes people value it less than if it took several hours although the results are the same.<P>

 

It used to be - if you want slides, shoot slide film.If you want prints, shoot print film. If you want the best quality prints, set up your own darkroom. Now could be added - If you want digital files, use a digital camera. If you want the best quality prints set up your own dry darkroom, Photoshop.

Philip,

I shoot mainly 35mm film, but also have a DSLR (Minolta 7D), a high end digital Point and Shoot (Panasonic/Leica FX150) and a Medium Format Fuji GA645Zi. They all have their uses, I enjoy them all, but overall, 35mm is best for me. I love shooting and projecting slides most of all, but also love negative films for people pics, and sometimes black and white too. I love the variety of emulsions and color palettes that my DSLR just doesnt give me.

 

I also try to keep my workflow as analog as possible. I only scan when I have a need to post an image online, or have a slide I want to print. I have no need or desire for a digital copy of every image I take. I prefer looking at my prints or slides directly. Even my digital shots - I print the best ones for later viewing. Maybe the fact that I work on the computer all day at work factors into my preferences also?

 

So, I get all my negative film developed as negatives only plus an index print for a dollar a roll, and have Costco scan and print my best shots on the negatives as 4x6 prints for 15 cents each. The very best ones I also have them make an 8x12 or 11x14 of also for $1.49/$2.49. Best part is that they do all the scanning. Their negative scanner, a Noritsu HS-1800 is like a $30,000 scanner optimized for negative film that does a great job. However, with slides, it is not as good as my Minolta 5400, so in that case I scan myself.

 

My advice to you would be:

1) If you are making money working as a photographer, let the lab do it all. Let them scan and factor it into your costs. Scanning film takes lots of your time.

2) If doing it for enjoyment mainly (maybe selling a shot or two), then start off letting the lab scan for you. If you find you need more control or want to dabble in scanning, get yourself one of the Epson Photo flatbed scanners. They can be picked up as refurbished or discontimued models for like $100 new. I have an Epson 4870 and belwo I will post a link to see how well it scans 35mm. The Epsons all also scan Medium and Large format film. If you really get into it, then sell the Epson, and get a Nikon Coolscan 9000 for $1000 or so. But use the scanners only when needed. You can still enjoy your shots the old fashioned way:)

http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157608708111762/

 

 

click on the photos, then look in the upper right corner of the image, and click on "All Sizes". This gives youj an idea how well the Epson faltbeds scan 35mm slide film. Negative film is handled much worse though - less sharp and more grainy.

"It used to be - if you want slides, shoot slide film.If you want prints, shoot print film. If you want the best quality prints, set up your own darkroom. Now could be added - If you want digital files, use a digital camera."

 

I totally agree, thats why I slip the Panasonic FX150 in my pocket too, so I dont have to scan. But still, my scanned film shots still blow away my digital Point and Shoots in terms of sharpness and resolution. However, the digital PS can do some very cool things that a film camera or DSLR can not;)

If all that mattered was resolution, everyone would be hauling around 8x10 cameras still. I shoot 35mm because I really enjoy it. Unfortunately I'm not processing my own B&W right now so I shoot mostly color and have it scanned at the lab. I'm not too worried about it. The scans I get back are technically only the equivalent of 1.5 Megapixels... but somehow magically 1.5 MP of film data looks about 10billion times better than an image from a 1.5 MP digital camera. No desire to get into a debate about it, just something I've noticed. You don't need a crazy detailed scan for most applications. If I want to make large prints, I've always got my negatives which can be rescanned by a lab professionally for just such a purpose. But what really matters to me is the cameras. They just don't make a digital camera that looks or feels or handles like the great old classics. Call me crazy, but I hate menus and I hate them more the smaller they get and the more pointless they are. Somehow my OM1 does everything I need it to do with only 2 dials and no menus, and even runs without batteries. Go figure.

I love shooting with film because the registered rewind on my Pentax LX allows me to preflash my film so I can

shoot on Ilford Pan-F at E.I. 3200.

I've recently started shooting 35mm again a few months ago. I've been using an RZ67 for several years and continue

to do so. However I began to notice that as I went about my day-to-day life my eyes became more trained to be on

the look out even when I didn't have my RZ with me. The result was to pick up a 35mm camera that I could carry with

me during those times when I normally wouldn't be out taking pictures. I have a Pentax PZ-20 that was my first SLR

but it no longer works. Besides, I wanted something completely mechanical and sturdy. After looking at some

options and getting advice from members here on p.net, I went with a Nikon F2 with the DE-1 non metered finder and

a 28mm AI-S F2.8 lens. I had the body overhauled by Sover Wong (all the praise one reads on Sover Wong is well

deserved btw).

 

I have to admit I'm completely stoked with this camera. It's everything I hoped it would be...the F2's legendary status

is also well deserved. Since I shoot only b&w I do all the developing and printing myself the old fashioned traditional

way. Sure I get the occasional comment about having a old relic of a camera around my neck but hey, having shot a

number of modern day digital cameras, I can say for sure they don't make 'em like they used to.

I enjoy using film...very much so. My camera of choice is the Nikon F2. Next year I would like to pick up the F6. Thought about an F5 but was talked out of it by some P.netters! I may even get an F100...they are pretty inexpensive at this time.

 

I am getting a new laptop next month and plan to get a Nikon Coolscan V. I can't afford the higher end model at this time. I will order my prints from somebody...maybe Adorama. I am also thinking about getting an Epson 1400 printer for when I need prints right away. A gent I know has one, and he has been happy with the results. He gave me a print of my son and it looks good...I am impressed with the quality.

 

There is a lot of good film out there too...I have enjoyed Fuji Reala, Kodak Ultra Color and the Portra offerings. I am familiar with the films I use and know what to expect. Errors occur usually because I can be a bonehead. I never take my film to SAMS anymore...they have blown about three rols of film that I have taken in.

 

Yes...I enjoy using film!