Switched from digital back to film ?

[eric_miller10]

Not really, I just recently bought an old Minolta MF SLR (an XG-7 with a 55 mm, f/1.7 MC Rokkor lens) though, mainly for better low light capabilities than I could get with my Olympus 3040. But I still prefer digital for most situations, it's just that you have to remember it's quirks and limitations; ie noisy images at very long exposures and most prosumer cams top out at ISO 400. However at ISO 100 (which is all I shoot at), it makes very acceptable images.

 

Digital's greatest advantage is the instant gratification factor and that you don't have to worry about wasting film, if there's a shot you don't like, delete it.

[Barry Thomas]

<b>Rob:</b> <i>Some can't understand that using a scanner to digitize a piece of film can actually result in less time in front of the computer. ... and they must be archived somehow.</i>

<p>Hmmm. Well scanned image of film or digital camera file - same archiving requirements, so we can cancel those out as being the same on either side of the great divide. Assuming of course that the film original is stored somewhere bomb-proof - while the digital files can be store in multiple locations and each one is as much an original as the first.

<p><i>whereas every shot taken with a digital camera requires some PC time, as you have to get the shots off your CF card</i>

<p>Sure - about a second each. I put the card in the reader. That takes about as long as it takes to put a roll of film in a film mailer envelope (except the card has got up to 400 shots on my D60 - that's around 11 rolls of film) - say 5 minutes to pull a meg of images off a microdrive. Browsing through those 400 images in Paintshop Pro takes as long or as short as you like - bit like looking at a contact sheet - except to see any image full res takes just a double-click.

<p>Say what you like, but browsing your new images and picking out the keepers takes just moments with a digital camera. Cleaning them up takes next to no time as they are so clean right out of the camera. Printing takes just as long as with a scanned image.

<p>I'm well aware that film has a number of benefits over digital, but lets not make the mistake that speed is one of them.

[rrmax]

Mr Rishty

 

I am sorry. I didn't know that I intruded on an exclusive club where the "hero" has the right to beat up on new posters. This is even more twisted than I thought. Experience, or a thousand posts, doesn't excuse anyone from treating others with respect and some semblence of collegiality. Perhaps new voices, given an opportunity, might provide fresh ideas and new points of view. With your excuses for Mr. Eaton's arrogant behavior, this board will never allow them to be heard as they will be forced into silence...or should I say beat in to submission? The internet was not created as an excuse to treat people differently than you would treat them face to face.

 

I apologize to everyone for my frustration....I couldn't let this comment go unchalleged.

 

RM

[rob_landry]

Barry,

 

I was not saying that scanning IS quicker than an all digital workflow, I said that it CAN be, depending on how you go about it. I only scan those few shots I truly feel are worth framing, similar to what I did in a traditional darkroom. As far as archiving my scans, I don't do anything beyond saving the finished file to my hard drive before printing. "Look ma, no back-up!" Why should I need to, I have the original neg or transparency. Besides, scanners get better (and cheaper) all the time and should I ever need to make a reprint, I'll most likely have a better scanner anyway. The only scans that I would be fastidious about archiving are the ones I had to pay for, such as drum scans. Now those are worth saving.

 

Yeah, sure, a fire could potentially wipe out my slide collection, but the chances of that are pretty slim. I also live in an area (NE Canada) where our biggest natural disaster is lots of snow. Besides I know that even with digital, I would be far too lazy and undisciplined to have multiple copies stored in different locations, and a hard drive crash would surely catch me with my pants down, so to speak. I don't even have a safety deposit box. I guess I'm just a wild and crazy guy who likes to live dangerously...

 

Anyway, this has been an enlightening discussion but has digressed somewhat from the original question.

[george2]

Don't worry Robert, you're not alone. But treat Mr. Venom with respect. Like the holy cow of this forum. The untouchable!

 

He has some knowledge, no doubt; the knowledge a good printer should have. He's a good flower photographer as well. The problem is he presents himself as an expert in everything. He is a fanatic, creating havoc in other forums because he hates 35mm, Ilfochrome, Velvia and other reversal films, Agfa, Kodak, Portra, stupid lab operators, snapshooters, Leica users ... to name a few.

 

It makes no sense to argue with him. Look at the positive side: consider yourself lucky that you're not his customer! Could you imagine meeting him over the counter, trying to convince him you don't like his prints?

 

Cheer up, it's part of the game. A lab rat needs no social skills, after all :-)))

[rrmax]

Thanks George!

 

I will be glad to treat him with the same respect he gives others. I appreciate your kind comments as well as the other positive comments in this thread.

 

A lab employee, huh? Interesting....

[EricM]

One thing you're forgetting about scanning a 35mm neg is the possible file size. What's the largest file you can get from a scan? 72 meg near or take? what's the largest print you can get from a DSLR? Interpolate that baby.

 

 

You think Scott's response was biting? You haven't seen nothing yet. Get thicker skin, it's just a monitor.

[jeffrey_abelson]

"Some can't understand that using a scanner to digitize a piece of film can actually result in less time in front of the computer."

 

No dice - unless you have proofs made at the lab or shoot only slides - and then, only if you scan very few images - slides or negs. I'm sweating a big scan job right now: 2400 dpi scans of b/w and color negs - about 14-15 rolls. I processed the b/w myself and had my lab develop only the color negs, no proofs - so I had to scan contact sheets myself. Each 2400 dpi 35mm scan on my epson 2450 has go to be about 5-6 minutes - and that doesn't even count the editing that I'll have to do when this is done. Digital would cut this so far down, time wise: copy to hd, photoshop batch contact sheet, pick image and then digital workflow: crop to format; levels, curves, hue/sat, usm - print - done...

[jonathan_bundick]

Some can't understand that using a scanner to digitize a piece of film can actually result in less time in front of the computer."

 

Good point. I sort throught my slides, from 35mm to 4x5 quickly on a light table and scan only the best. Not much time involved to digitize my work. If I was using digital capture, I would have to spend more time in front of the monitor to download, sort, discard and correct, but I'm not doing hundres of images as a business. If I had to do this for a living then the coin would be reversed.

[chi_confucious]

I've gone from Digital to Film. This was back in 2000 when 3 megapixel cameras were the rage. At that time I bought my first digital camera and started selling prints online. I noticed that 35mm film capture was much better in quality so I went back to film. Anyhow, I currently have a 35mm, 6x4, and a 6 MP Canon 10D. I shoot more film for stuff I intend to sell.

[fp1]

Yup.

Scanned 6x9 film on a Nikon 9000. (Yeah, I know it's digital.) That's all she wrote. My

D70 is gathering dust. Black and white conversions from dslr's just don't compare

favorably with properly scanned medium format film. I'm one of those artsy-fartsy

types. Just wish I had room for a 4x5 enlarger. Film, even scanned film, has so much

more warmth, depth and volume than digital. It's a bit like comparing oil painting with

acrylic painting, where oils=film and acrylics=digital capture.

 

Just an opinion. In this case, the correct one. :-)