last film scanner?

[fp1]

Am I the last hold out? After fooling around with large and ultra large format,

I've decided to go back to what has historically worked for me best: Hasselblad

V system and Nikon mf scanner.

 

With the advent of digital Fujiblads, I am beginning to wonder if I am indeed a

dinosaur. Seems like ALL the pros are forgoing scanned film. Am I the only

one who still prefers scanned MF film?

 

Not trying to start a debate (really, I am not), just want opinions.

[robert meier]

I have done the same thing -- returned to my Hasselblad 2000FCM and scanning the color negs and printing the B&W negs myself. I get much better pictures than I got with 4x5 and much better prints than I get with 35mm or digital. The best of both worlds.

[derek_jecxz]

You are not a dinosaur.

 

Keep in mind, there are those who consider photography an art and there are those who love the technological side. If you're the former, it doesn't matter what you use; if you're the latter, get the latest and greatest.

 

For professionals, it is a business and sometimes the best/fastest is the optimal choice. Waiting to get film developed, scanning it, going from analog to digital, etc... can get in the way of business.

 

Derek Jecxz

 

www.jecxz.com

[Ed_Ingold]

You can get really good results with a film scanner, usually with better sharpness and color gamut than in the darkroom, without staining your fingers. The problem is time. Scanning is an extremely time-consuming activity, making it impractical for all but low-volume professional work (e.g., fine art). It might take 8 to 24 hours to scan four or five rolls of film taken at an event. While you could take film to a minilab, the quality level won't be competetive with high-quality scans or, especially, digital capture. Professional quality labs have all but disappeared.

 

In short, enjoy film and scanning if you wish. For a relatively small investment (less than a darkroom) you can get results, particularly from medium format film equal to or better than even high-end small-format DSLRs. Unfortunately, professionals do not drive the marketplace, and never have. It is the myriads of amateurs who have abandoned film, driving the market toward extinction.

[William Kahn]

If you're a dinosaur, you're in good company. There are more than a few of us who survived the digital meteor impact. And, the more of us there are, the longer the film will keep coming from Kodak, et al, and we can stay out of the tar pits.....

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

"It might take 8 to 24 hours to scan four or five rolls of film taken at an event."

 

That's much faster than my pace in the darkroom (for color).

 

Yes, fstopme, you are a dinosaur. But so am I, and I'm fine with it. I shoot a Mamiya 7, though, instead of a Hasselblad.

[ian_mazursky]

I guess im a dinosaur in reverse...i think.

 

I started with 35mm, went to $30,000.00 digital backs. Then i went to medium format 6x7 then 645 and i

am now with a 40+ year old Crown Graphic 4x5. I also have a 12x20 that im getting ready to shoot with.

I just need some friends to help me carry it into the field.

 

I do however have a drum scanner and I scan almost all of my film. But I do all of my B&W/Color contact

sheets in a darkroom. I find it fun!.

 

I support Kodak, Fuji and Ilford in there film endeavors. As long as I can get film, i will be a happy puppy.

Film is still King in my book. All of my clients think the same way.

 

 

-ian

[benny_spinoza]

We are all dinosaurs. I guess the issue is whether you are a professional or not. Most professionals have bills to pay, and so will do what is necessary to maximize profits. If a digital workflow does that, then that is the rational course to take. But for amateurs, its an entirely different story, and we can "afford" to be dinosaurs. If time is not a factor, then the highest bang-per-buck is to shoot film and scan.

 

I enjoy shooting film and scanning film. And I enjoy the image processing that goes along with it, trying to coax every bit of infomation stored in the negative. It's a hobby, and it relieves stress.

[hugh_sakols]

I still shoot medium format and scan using a minolta multi pro. Yes scanning is time consuming but I don't scan whole rolls of film. I spend plenty of time editing on a light table before making my scans.

 

www.yosemitecollection.com

[User_503771]

Dinosaur, huh?

 

Well, I too lumber about the earth, browsing and ingesting the most succulent leaves I can find.

 

But seriously folks: I figured out that with my little ol' Epson 4870, I can scan a 6x6 and get roughly 56 megapixels from it. And the color rendition is much better than I've seen from digital anything under mucho buckolas. (And I'm talking real expensive here, folks!)

 

And I second the above, that if it suits you and you get the results you want, keep it up.

[kparratt]

Strolling through Sherbrooke Forest on the outskirts of Melbourne in 2004, I was stopping to spread the tripod legs, to make photographs such as the one shown here. Only this year since buying the Epson V700 have I been able to share the results with others. As with all the contributions above, I am really enjoying it. For urgent capture-to-Web jobs, a digital is handy, but I find so much satisfaction working with film, in all formats, that I will continue on this path.

 

Echoing our friends here, it is important to buy film and use it.

 

Benny speaks of "trying to coax every bit of information stored in the negative". It really is truly amazing what's possible. I have dug out previously unprintable, underexposed Kodachromes. The scanner has dug up treasure of colour info stored in them. And whilst my B&W work remains happily in the darkroom, the exception is working on damaged negatives from decades ago. Selecting one worth the effort, I'll scan it at atleast 2400 and get into spotting and removing scratches, and there are some that suffered through light leakage, as well as development blotches. It takes time, but they are restorable. Where damage has occurred in delicate detail, I'll blow it up on the screen 300% and fix it pixel by pixel if necessary.

 

On another thread I talked about photographing artwork. For this I already have a couple of the best lenses ever made, for resolution and near zero distortion, the Zeiss 100mm Planar and the S-Planar 120mm. Why should I ever retire this equipment?!<div></div>

[Ed_Ingold]

Michael,

 

I can scan a 6x6 negative and get more pixels than that by resampling. Unfortunately, you don't gain from a 4870 above about 1500 ppi, or 11 MP. If you think the color rendition is better, then you obviously haven't seen a competent digital image.

[erik scanhancer]

I also prefer scanned film. Firstly because it can get me a look and quality I really love, especially in B&W. Secondly, I could

invest heavily in digital (since photography is what makes my living), but I would have to intensify my shooting in order to

be able to earn that equipment back. Sometimes I use a cheap digital (Canon G9) to shoot some extra images alongside my

MF film shooting. Clients love that extra material, but the keyframes are always on MF film as they often need to be blown

up. The lab scans my films faster than I could process digital files myself. For high-end imagery I will do the scanning

myself on a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro. I could afford a top-quality MFDB but frankly I think it is a waste of money,

given the quality and efficiency I can get with film.

[bradgillette]

Are you kidding me? Sure, I'll do digital if time is an issue, but for the time being any of my "art" photos are shot on film. I'm a special case, as I have around 20 Flextight scanners available to me (my tuition pays for it!). Scanning 6x6 at maximum optical resolution I'm able to print 40x40 at 300dpi without interpolation. That's just not possible with the current crop of one-shot digital backs. It gets even more insane once you start scanning 4x5 and 8x10 large format. Spotting for dust and paying for development are more than worth it for these results, and you can get a medium format setup for the same price (well, a lot less if you don't go with a 'blad) as a digital SLR.

 

Digital capture has a long way to go before it meets the quality of a 4x5 scan, let alone an 8x10. As far as I can tell, scanning technology will continue to improve and people will still be using the "hybrid" process.

[mikepeters]

I'm a pro for the past 30 years and have long since abandoned film for jobs. Clients want

digital, that's what they get. Besides the workflow has become so streamlined that I can

get through a lot of photos in a short period of time.

 

But, for me, film is still the king of the hill. I so prefer the look of film and enjoy the fact

that is captures so much more information than a digital sensor. Grain is wonderful,

especially when you can scan it and see it in prints. There is a character and substance to

film already built in, not something you have to add in post production. I also prefer to

have something tangible in my hand at the end of the day, and in the next 20 years so I

can go back and re-scan my work if all my vaunted digital storage bites the dust.

 

I use a Microtek 120 tf to make my scans and am quite pleased with the results.