"Shooting 35mm in a world of Digital post-production"

[gary_gumanow]

<p>I shot film because I like the tactile feel of it. I print everything on silver gelatin paper in my darkroom because I like to print. I scan the prints to share ideas and pics with others that I've met on flickr. I work in the computer industry and hate to use computers. I don't own PS or do any PP whatsoever. I'm not a purist, I just hate using a computer. I've got the print and I know what it looks like, putting it on the Internet is so that I can share it with other people.<br>

I agree though, nothing beats the sound of the M6shutter.</p>

[maile_lani]

<p>personally, i've never had one digital photograph that i've taken look the way i wanted it to, so i play with contrast and saturation and do what i can to make my photos look the way i want. i feel a little more freedom with digital too, almost like it's a starting point. with film, it's just the opposite. the only photos i really mess with are the ones i've messed up in camera. however, i do use lens filters, experiment with different film stocks, and push my film like crazy which is basically the same as someone adjusting things in photoshop. photoshop just makes your life easier (and less expensive!)</p>

[nzdavid]

<p>I shoot mostly slide film, and have it scanned professionally onto CDs. If I need to adjust anything, it's only very minimally: contrast and levels, etc.</p>

<p>The main reason is I would far rather be out taking pictures than spending hours in front of the computer!</p>

<p>The digital age is turning everyone into computer programmers, glued to a screen.</p>

 

[nee_sung]

<p>The trouble is, the scanned image is already a post-processed image. Search this site and you'll find a lot of information on this. One poster actually recommended that you scanned a "raw" image and do all processing in Photoshop.</p>

<p>To avoid any digital processing one would be forced back into the dark room. What to do? I don't know the answer.</p>

[terrypittman]

<p>I think whatever floats each photographer boat, film or digital is fair game. Enjoy the ride!</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<blockquote>

<p>"20 years from now we can re-scan our film and get 2029-level image quality."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A pretty convincing dissertation on the true RAW. (Film) : <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm">Ken Rockwell states...</a> </p>

 

[jonathan_reynolds]

<p>I find it more a matter of necessity than philosophy!</p>

<p>In general, the film and paper combination produce a beautiful and natural gradation of tones, and I have little wish to change that. However, it results from the complimentary characteristic curves of the paper and negative.</p>

<p>I usually find that I must make many adjustments to the scan file to persuade it to look like a straight darkroom print. This is partly to substitute for the characteristic curve of the printing paper, but especially because I've been careful not to clip highlights when scanning, and this results in a distorted tonal curve (at least in the setup I use - Canon FS4000US with Vuescanan and operated by an idiot)(me). I also need to restore sharpness lost in scanning. I regard those adjustments as corrective rather than creative.</p>

<p>However, I may also want to loose distracting shadow details, or boost mid-tone contrast where the original lighting was flat, or squash in the tones of the sky. In the darkroom you would commonly do these minor creative tweaks by choosing the paper grade and exposure, perhaps progressing to flashing or different paper developers. I don't see any reason not to do equivalent things to a scan file.</p>

<p>In the darkroom, I may also do a little burning and dodging because uncontrollable light conditions out of doors can create visually distracting effects. So far, I do burning and dodging rarely with scan files because I find it such a pain on a computer.</p>

<p>In either darkroom or lightroom, beautiful light seems to me an elusive thing. Where light quality is what I chiefly wanted to capture, I find I have to almost excavate it from the negative.</p>