Leica capture then digital darkroom

[jay_nowakowski4]

I have been using a leica M6 as my main camera for some time and

would have machine prints made with mixed results. Now I scan the

prints myself and then have them made and the results are incredibly

better. So much so that I seldom use flash and am able to adjust

exposure,color, etc. with the scan. It seems to be the best of both

worlds. Leica is simple to use, very discrete and dependable with

superb lenses. All I really need to carry is the camera, 1 or 2

lenses and an incident meter - bearly breaking 5 pounds. I do have

an SLR system with all the 2.8 lenses that are bulky, heavy and

scream out "camera". I barely use it and don't miss it. When I use

100 speed film the results are great.

 

Is any one else working this way and if so, do you have any other

suggestions using this approach.

[les_lammers]

I'm getting there. I just got my scanner set up. I had a similar experience with 'prints by machine'. I'm sure I can get better results

on my own. I am going to use B&W only until I get more experience.

[larry_kincaid1]

There must be many of us working this way. I just bought the Konica-Minolta 5400II and have been quite happy with the automated scan of my 35 year old Kodachrome slides that are beginning to die. I have yet to move to B&W, but that's next. I told my wife that the scanner is my first digital camera, one which takes superb photos of my Leica slides and prints. I am also happy with the HP 7960 printer, especially the photo grey ink. When a better "digital" Leica appears at a reasonable cost, I may consider switching, but I don't see that happening for a couple of years at best. The high definition digital TV's that are being legally thrust upon us will help this along. The nice rectangular shape and $ 4,000 high definition picture will replace the free wall and $ 135.00 Leica slide projector I now use once in a while. But think of it, I won't have to get up and set up the projector or screen. I can just click with the clicker and lean back in my chair. Also, no one can run away because I will still only have one TV.

[jack_markham]

I use the HP7960 also. It makes a terrific B&W print. I use color negative film in my M4 and MP. The local drug store prints are really bad. I take the film to K-Mart and have Kodak Primium 4x6 prints made. I use these prints as proofs and to give away. I scan negatives that I want to make prints from with my Nikon Coolscan IV. I use Photoshop CS Hue/Saturation Adjustment layer to make a B&W image.

 

I also use a Nikon Digital SLR with a bunch of expensive Nikon glass. But, I've been using Leicas for thirty-five years and most of my best images still come from my Leicas.

[jtdnyc]

I'm following the same route: scanning with a Minolta 5400 and printing with an HP7960.

 

So far, I'm happy with the prints I can make from perfect negatives, but I have yet to master dealing with my many less-than-perfect negatives. There are moments when I simply want to set my darkroom up again.

 

I have found it easier to "rescue" bad negatives in the darkroom, but maybe that's simply because I spent several years developing darkroom skills and have only been using my scanner and printer for several months.

 

My suggestion, based on very limited experience, is not to depend on post-processing to make good prints from bad negatives. Pay attention to technique at the moment of exposure, at least as much attention as when the final product was a wet print.

[brambor]

Same here. Leica M with three lenses but usually carry only one. Shoot B&W or slides, develop BW at home, slides at a high quality lab and then scan at home. <P>Same feeling about SLR size handicap but I have to admit that if I carry my Canon with 50mm lens then the weight isn't much of an issue. The weight and especially size start adding up once I carry more lenses in a bag.

[ben z]

On major trips I'm still shooting slides with the aim of projecting them. I like seeing my photos on a six foot wide screen through a Leica Super Colorplan Pro lens. Digital projectors don't even come close. Maybe if I had a $5000 home-theater plasma TV, but I don't.

 

For color prints I have a local lab that caters to the few pros still shooting film, and they give me a little index print to help me pick the negs I want to scan. I got a Canon 4000 for a couple hundred bucks from a pro who went completely digital, and it included the Vuescan software which is nice. I develop my own black and white, scan them as if they were slides and then invert them in Photoshop. A pro tipped me off to that, it seems to pull more detail from the shadows. I have an Epson 2200 but it's got the better of me, just too frustrating and time consuming trying to get good results from it. I'm not at the point of getting a monitor calibrator and fussing with profiles yet. Picked up an HP7960 on closeout for $99 just to do b&w (which it does beautifully), but also found that it does great color right out of the box.

[stephane camus]

For color (I shoot slide), scanning the film gives me full satisfaction. It is indeed the best of both worlds. I do not have a decent printer and for paper prints, I rely on finding a good digital lab.

<br>For BW shots however, I scan the negatives for preview and web-posting, but nothing beats real a darkroom -in my opinion-.

<br>My gear: Leica M6 and Nikon 4000... it rocks.

<br>

Happy shooting!

[les_lammers]

*For BW shots however, I scan the negatives for preview and web-posting, but nothing beats real a darkroom -in my opinion-. *

 

Have a look here: www.paulroark.com

[seb v.]

MP and Coolscan V. The high st lab can usually process neg only without problems then I

can scan to see shots. I will photoshop a little to send on web but if there are any good

ones I will send to pro lab for a nice print. All in all a much cheaper way to look at photos.

I honestly can't see myself going digital. I gather you have to shoot in something called

RAW and then spend hours in photoshop getting it looking good.

[opus35]

I actually came from digital before adding film (Leica MP and Cl). Used my Canon 1D Mark

II, Photoshop and Epson 2200 for prints. Forthe 2200 printer I use the $50 software

Quadtone RIP to get really neutral B&W prints.

 

Jay:

Shooting in RAW gives you great control of your picture, including white balance,

exposure, contrast, etc. Very easy to do. Probably the reason you can spend hours on a

photo is that you can do ANYTHING to it - it's just how much you'd like to do.

Now I've never developed my own negs (though I really would like to) and never printed

my own negs myself, but from what I hear the reall work goes into making the print, yes?

It's the same with using Photoshop. Tweak as much as you'd like to get the final print

looking the way you want it. RAW gives you more latitude and the most information to

work with.

 

I now find myself without the weight of the Canon camera and lenses, prefering to carry

just the Leica CL and it's 40 Rokkor for their light weight. Sometimes I'll use a 90 cron,

but that's rare.

I think Leicas and film are great but the digital darkroom is really coming into its own. I'm

planning on getting a film scanner, one of the Minoltas SD IV, 5400 or 5400 II I so can use

Photoshop and the 2200 on my Leica shots.

[rich815]

***For BW shots however, I scan the negatives for preview and web-posting, but nothing beats real a darkroom -in my opinion-. * <p>

 

Have a look here: www.paulroark.com ***

<p>

And listen here (410k audio blog from the editor of Lenswork):

<p>

<a href="http://www.lenswork.com/blog/050324.mp3">http://www.lenswork.com/blog/050324.mp3</a><p>

 

I used to feel the same until I actually saw, and now can produce myself, <i><u>good</u></i> B&W inkjet prints.

[robert goldstein]

I am following the same path, albeit with a Contax G2 rather than a Leica. It's astonishing how much better my scans are than the minilab prints that I used to get. My scanner is the Minolta 5400. I usually scan at 5400dpi and then edit in Photoshop. Only selected images get printed now, and those are on a Noritsu digital printer.

 

One of the best developments for me has been the switch from negative to transparency film. I did this, because transparency film scans much better and faster on the 5400. In the process, I have discovered the beauty of slides. For the most part, I shoot Astia 100f and Provia 400f. Astia is truly amazing and can make 12x18" prints that are close to medium format quality.

 

A digital SLR is tempting, but I would hate to give up my rangefinder for the same reasons as mentioned by jay. Pentax and Olympus make some pretty compact digital SLRs and lenses, and I can see myself jumping to one of their ships at some point in the future.

[rj]

I am reading the reviews of the Epson 4990 with interest. I shoot 35mm, 645, 4x5 and wanting to shoot more 8x10 so a flatbed might be my cup o' tea. The only thing that really bothers me is that I will have to update my puter if I get a scanner, which means more money. The emac seems promising, but maybe I will splurge and get the imac. I was thinking of getting the *istDS instead of the scanner, but have thought that would be stupid to do it because if I get into the digital darkroom, I want to use my larger negatives. The bottom line is that I need more money. ;-)

[ray g.]

I scan my negatives as well, and print b/w on a 7960. I have a couple of questions for those that, after editing, have the prints made: I find that scanning the negs at the highest resolution on my Minolta Scan Dual IV (3200 dpi) gives me huge, upwards of 40MB, files.

 

- Do you lower the size /resolution of these files before saving them on a disc to bring to your local printer? If so, to what size - for 8x10 max print size?

 

- Saving those huge files of the original scans eats up quite a bit of memory. What resolution do you scan at, and what resolution/size do you use to save your original files?

 

The way I see it, why get a 3200 dpi scanner if you aren't going to use the capability? The resultant size of the files can get unwieldy, though, and I am curious as to what others are doing.

[robert goldstein]

Ray,

 

You think you've got big files? A 5400dpi scan of a 35mm frame yields a file of about

215Mb. It requires a fast computer with lots of RAM and storage capacity to handle files

that big. But I use that resolution, because it produces the best image quality. Some

people will argue this point, but I have seen nothing to dissuade me. When I

want to take a file to a lab for printing on a digital printer, I first resize the image to

300dpi and the desired print size. 300dpi seems to be the optimum resolution for

viewing prints from a reasonable distance. Then I convert from 16bit to 8bit, as this is all

that

commercial printers can handle. These two steps reduce file size dramatically, usually to

less than 40Mb. It's also very important to convert the color profile to sRGB, although this

does not affect file size.

 

Storage of large files is a topic in itself. I am using 160Gb external hard drives, because

they are big and very efficient.

 

Rob

[ray g.]

Thanks, Rob. Exactly the information I was looking for. Interesting point about scanning slides. I will definitely give that a try.

[monte_johnson]

It is interesting to see how many have discovered how much nicer your

photos when you scan your neg or slides. I hae an Epson 4870 and an R800

printer. Nice set up for me. I have been scanning and printing for a year both

with 35mm and 120 film scans. I have gotten many 8+10 prints that surpassed

the qulity of lab prints. I understand now why this happens. We all take pride

in what we do and no lab will spend the time adjusting levels of scan like we

do. I find that printing my own makes this hobby much more satisfying.

 

I had a Contax Aria with a 50 1.4 lens that I sold to jump to medium format.

With that camera I made some of the sharpest prints from slide film I have ever

seen. I have now questioned my choice to sell it to make the switch. I am now

looking towards a Leica M6 or R8 to switch back. All I can say is Zeiss has the

touch for slide film and scanning 35mm slides shot with that kind of glass is

very rewarding.

 

Sorry if I got off the point, but anyone that is considering buying a scanner and

printer is going to be quite pleased at the difference you get in your prints. The

price of deicated scanner are affordable now and their quality is very good.

 

I love the involvement of this site with others. There is so much to learn and

explore and we do it together, Monte Johnson.