why use film and scan?

<p>I understand photographers who still shoot with films and do enlargements. Can someone tell me what is the purpose for those who shoot in film then scan and print digitally? Thanks.</p>

<p>For me it is two things: in B&W the control of the development process for films with vastly different characteristics, including very low ISO; for color...I feel I have better dynamic range, AND I do get better scans than what my DSLR produces (yes I have an older one without the latest gigapixels). Lastly, I have a freezer full of film just waiting to be used!See the next post (mine) for a rough example of a quick & dirty from last week, I could have come close with my DSLR, but the film did just fine).</p>

<p>Well, if you are still using a film camera, then film is what you get out of it. The next step is then to find a way to get a useful picture from the film. Scanning is one way to do it, and if you lack darkroom equipment, space, running water, time and technique, scanning and digital printing work well. Even though the film's dynamic range and resolution may exceed the scanner's ability, newer equipment will continue to find improvement in the same image, something not so likely in purely digital images. The digital shots you made ten years ago will probably look the same on today's equipment. The Kodachromes you scanned ten years ago will look better if you rescan them with a better scanner.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>i prefer the results i get from it compared to my outdated digital SLR. i also prefer film in general. however, im currently tweaking an underexposed velvia slide and wondering the exact same thing! nothing more frustrating than tweaking an underexposed positive... at least its not kodachrome (while my favorite film, is even harder to scan if the frame is underexposed)</p>

<p>1) Because they never actually made a digital converter for 35mm SLRs<br>

2) I love old 35mm cameras and like to shoot with them, they only take film (see 1).<br>

3) There's no digital equivalent for films like Lucky, Indian made Fujipro, and respooled ORWO.<br>

4) I found lots of frozen film last year when we didn't have power for 2 weeks.<br>

5) I shot film for some 50 years so have a huge library of film images. Digitizing them lets me do things I couldn't have dreamed of without a huge lab and professional skills when I took the pictures. Suck it up Excel, Photoshop is my god now!</p>

<p>I'm sure there are lots of reason, but those are mine.</p>

Jdm has my reasons pretty well listed. I shoot digital far more than film. But I shoot film for the enjoyment of using film

cameras and for the "look" that film gives my photos (with no Photoshop time).

 

However if scanning isn't your "thing" I would encourage you to shoot c-41 films and just have the fuji/noritsu machine scan them when the film is processed. No, it's not the best scan you can get. But it's cheap and plenty good enough for proofing, snapshots, or the web. At least in my opinion.

<p>One of the issues with color for me was always that you couldn't manipulate your image the way YOU wanted it to be. Digital, scanning film, allows for you to realize what you intended rather than relying on what the film/paper could yield. I am not talking about gross manipulation, but extending tonal range, isolating contrast adjustments (overall for that matter) and other things you could do even in a B/W darkroom. Digital allows more adjustments done more precisely.</p>

<p>Shooting film can also yield a much better dynamic range and a good scanner, output of a RAW file can allow you to exploit this to the fullest. In fact, digital allows more dynamic range from the film than possible in traditional darkroom process. In particular, what may be "muddy" underexposed areas in a darkroom print can gain full and vibrant detail. This is an area where digital capture still can't compete.</p>

<p>Digital capture is certainly better than even 5 years ago, but a film scan is still a much richer file, and sharper-no moire screens to worry about--besides, there aren't any good 4x5 backs for landscape!</p>

<p> I, also, shoot more digital than film, but if you have never made images with a fine mechanical camera you are missing out on a wonderful tactile experience. Pick up a Leica M3, a Canon F-1 or Nikon F2 and feel the precision mechanism through your fingers...a delight! The lenses weren't too shabby either. </p>

<p>On a practical note, a large or medium format negs gives a level of print quality that is hard, and extremely expensive, for digital cameras to match in a single shot capture. Important when very large, high quality prints are desired.</p>

<p>On a non-practical note, there is something satisfying about using a film camera with no meter, no batteries and no automation. You actually have to slow down and think in a different way. Can you imagine not being able to "chimp" exposure or composition? Actually have to do math to figure bellows draw? There is a pleasure, for me, to exercise basic photographic fundamentals. There is a joy in the utter simplicity of the process. I helps me feel a greater connection to the subject. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>In the olden days, the camera shutter actually went off the <em>INSTANT you pressed the shutter release. </em>Not after lags induced by a lot of worthless automation, but when you actually wanted it to. Very hard to do with modern cameras. You can spend thousands of dollars for pro models to approximate that ultimate zen experience, but not quite there. (By the way, the single lens mirror flop itself adds a shutter lag.) Only film camera did this, not because they are film, but because they were all mechanical.<br>

If all you've ever eaten is a big mac, you think an all beef patty and a sesame seed bun is haute cuisine. (Actually, I don't have a perfect mechanical camera anymore.)</p>

 

I just took a look at some of my old Kodchrome slides from the summer of 1960 using a simple handheld viewer and they look like the day they came back from Rochester. No electrons were injured. I take a mix of digital and slide film nowadays but unless someone reformats all the digital picture every decade or so I doubt if they will be viewable 50 years fom now. I occasionally scan some of my old slides for email purposes but for my own use a Zadiix viewer (probably also 50 years old, needs occasional dusting) is what I use.

<p>I can't afford a large format digital back.<br>

And film is fun.<br>

Scanning film is a secondary consideratoi for me - negs don't get scanned as a matter of course, any more than they all get printed. But sometimes I want to do both.</p>

<p>I was doing some LF the other day. A friendly bystanders remarks that could get a digital back.<br>

Thing is, the camera cost £10 on ebay, and a back would cost ?</p>

 

<p>I don't get shutter lag on my smaller digital cameras.<br>

I think usually this refers to an AF lag, which if you work manually you don't get anyway.<br>

I do get with one of them a long pause while it stores the image, which some people count as shutter lag as it slows your frames per second to frames per minute.</p>

<p>Yes there is a momentary but sometimes important "lag" on SLR, and the viewfinder blanking can be disconcerting.</p>

<p>The way I see it, I added digital to my film work. I like both for their different advantages, and while I shoot digital most of the time now, I always carry and use a film body. I like the "shoot and forget" mentality where I can't look at it between shots. It makes me look forward to the next one than fussing over the one taken. It also makes me see how good I really am, or not. There's no automatic fixing or adjustments, I either got it or not (ok, bracketing aside). And the same as Keith, I can't afford a digital back for the 4x5. LF film and processing is expensive enough, but there's nothing like looking at a 4x5 transparency.</p>

<p>Sometimes the final product that the viewers want really is just a picture on their monitor. In those instances, scanning saves work. </p>

<p>Making the initial recording in film is similar to a painter deciding to make an initial recording in oil paints, even though watercolor is available. Just because a newer or different technology has come along doesn't mean that it'll have the same characteristics of interaction with the person doing the drawing. </p>

<p>That is, pick the materials that you like and then carry the process through to meet the desired end results. Maybe those ideas will clarify some of the choices about the points in between.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Because I can.</p>

<p>I shoot both and submit both to publishers but prefer film. I don't have to process my transparancies. It is much easier to submit film to publishers. All I have to do is type out a ID label. It seems every publisher wants digital submitted differently. Some want the raw file while others want tiff and some, high res jpegs. they all want something different in file info. All that means hours more in front of the computer, which I don't enjoy.</p>

<p>Digital has a limited range of luminances between the darkest and lightest area of the photo. The newer (and more expensive) sensors have a greater range. But Film has even a greater range than the most expensive digital sensors. <br>

As long as your light is controlled and within 5-7 stops of light, digital is great and convenient. But if you want to capture a photo with deeper shadow detail and brighter highlights, then film is better.<br>

Ever notice on digital photos that the sky or highlights on a person's check or forehead get blown out and just looks pure white? And at the same time, the shadows just turn pure black? Well, film can handle those situations much better and it looks more realistic. <br>

I suspect that as sensor technology evolves not only will megapixels grow, so will the histogram range.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For me, it's all about the body and lenses, particularly the body.<br>

Compared to digital SLR's and lenses, film SLR's tend to be smaller and lighter, which is a <em>big</em> plus if like me you take camera equipment along on hikes. Most of the extra weight in DSLR's is used for features like autofocus which I seldom want to use. Ditto for the extra weight and bulk of new autofocus-era lenses.<br>

<br /> Film SLR's (at least, the old one I use) don't have to be powered up and running down batteries just to be ready to take a shot, and I often sit waiting for several minutes for a flower to stop waving in the breeze before I trip the shutter. Old manual-focus SLR's don't have half-silvered reflex mirrors, so their finders are brighter and easier to focus with.<br>

I shoot digital, too, by the way. I love my DMC-LX3; so much functionality crammed into a small package. No, it can't match the macro results I get with an SLR, a macro lens, and a tripod, but it's light and convenient and I don't want to lug an SLR, a tripod, and a bag full of lenses with me all the time.</p>

<p>I love the process of developing my own black and white film. It's like cooking a good meal. Each time the ingredients and process can be suited to the end result. I also love looking at 35mm and larger transparencies. Nothing in the world beats holding the very camera original up to a light. Talk about capture!<br>

And because it's a cheap way to get full frame. My 20mm Nikkor is really wide with film. On my D90 it's just a wide normal lens....and I don't have 2 Grand for a full frame camera.<br>

And I love my medium format cameras. It's the same reason a lot of guys collect old muscle cars but drive a Nissan to work.</p>

<p>I use both. I've used film for a long time and have come to "know" a few film types that I use regularly. While my goal is ultimately a print, digital is necessary to share a photo with friends, to get feedback, and to post on my website for the general public to see (and to then buy huge quantities!). I like to scan, and I like to tweak my photos to bring out the best in them --- I like to have the control. I can also send the digitized file to a pro printer for an exceptionally large, greatly detailed print, far larger than I'm able to print on my very nice Epson 3880. I'm also able to offer different printing options that I couldn't do on my own: canvas wraps, Colorplak, and aluminum prints. When I use film, I usually end up discarding pixels; when I use digital, a degree of interpolation is usually necessary prior to printing. Finally, digital usually does a poor job of tonal transitions in the vicinity of the sun; that's where film really shows (to me) its superiority over digital.</p>

<p>Film provides another medium to back up my images. I'm a belt and suspenders guy when it comes to data backup.</p>

<p>I shoot and print digitally for 35mm but also shoot Medium format if I want to make a serious landscape print. Maybe because I never tried it before but is there a reason to do a $150 drum scan and print it on an epson. Is it better quality that traditional enlargement?</p>

 

<p>because the colors films create are better than digital. especially slides. i'm still working on a small stash of Kodachromes - <a href="http://mooostudios.com/light_kr64/light_kodachrome.htm">http://mooostudios.com/light_kr64/light_kodachrome.htm</a> - and digital has got about a decade to go to be this good. </p>

<p>we use film for pleasure and scan for ease of sharing. i doubt professionals make money using film. maybe i'm wrong. i hope i'm wrong...</p>

<p>Because a Leica M9 and all the accompanying accoutrements and computer system updating will run close to $9000 and since I take pictures to suit no one but myself there is no need at this time to do otherwise.</p>

<p>The Case for film:</p>

<p><a href="http://photosttl.blogspot.com/2009/05/case-for-film.html">http://photosttl.blogspot.com/2009/05/case-for-film.html</a></p>