Shoot film and convert to digital?

[paul_goutiere]

<p>"No one who shoots 4x5 tranny film for a living -- myself included -- would ever attempt to correctly render a subject of that detail and complexity by exposing only TWO SHEETS of film!"</p>

<p>Except perhaps a true professional completely confident in his/her medium.</p>

[charles_wood]

<p>Perhaps Bob has developed some skills that others lack.</p>

[bill poole]

<p>I shoot digital for work - I am a writer an editor and often have to illustrate stories. Digital is the way to go when you need to produce a large number of quality images very quickly. <br>

For pleasure, I shoot 35 mm and medium format film. I like 35 mm because I would rather carry my Leica M6 than my far heavier Canon 5D, and because the images it produces are sharp and lovely. I like medium format, because the quality and character of the images is something special. Digital images may be smoother, but film images are far richer.<br>

I develop my own b&w and am fortunate to have a good lab to do the color. Then I look at the negatives, select the ones of interest, and do quick low-res scans on a Nikon 8000. Finally, I come back and do high-res scans of the few I want to print. The process is it's own reward. <br>

I find that Portra scans very well, yielding realistic color. I have had problems with Ektar, which has fine grain, but always needs color correction after the scan. Scanning b&w is harder because you can't use digital ICE and so you have to do a lot of spotting in Photoshop. <br>

But I am no longer interested in producing dozens or hundreds of images a week -- I have hard drives full of images I never look at. I am happy if any single roll yields one image a really care about. For me, it is about slowing down and thinking about the process. And I don't believe that film is going away, because more and more people are going back to it for some of the reasons you have heard cited in this thread. <br>

Hope this helps.<br>

Bill Poole</p>

<p> </p>

[stp]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Difference without distinction. Let me put it another way: show me a film print (optical or digital scan), and I will show you a photographer who could produce a print of the same style from a digital original such that you could never tell the difference in a double blind study. That may be hard to accept, but it is true.</em><br /><em><br /></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can still spot a photo from across the room if it was taken with a digital camera and the photo includes the sun. Maybe a digital original can emulate a film shot that includes the sun, but it seems to be exceedingly rare or exceedingly difficult, and perhaps both.</p>

[andylynn]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm sorry, but in your example, a properly executed digital image of that work would smoke your two trannies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That didn't make sense. Bob gave a fine example of something you can do with 4x5 film that you can't do with a current digital camera. Crazy high res.</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<blockquote>

<p>Charles Wood stated: Gus, sorry to bust your bubble but Wizard of Oz has been updated in recent years digitally. The original quality of the Technicolor transfer would look like crap by standards of today if not enhanced digitally.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Charles, I feel that you made <em>my point</em> much stronger. Try that with a 1950's Kinescope... <strong>Pop !</strong></p>

[blakley]

<p>Dan wrote<br>

<br /> <em> You shooting the piece on 4x5 transparency film and claiming it's much better than the digital examples is funny. No one who shoots 4x5 tranny film for a living -- myself included -- would ever attempt to correctly render a subject of that detail and complexity by exposing only TWO SHEETS of film!<br /> Where's your margin for processing error? How can you tell you've nailed the exposure in such a finicky medium with only two examples to go by? No extra sheets for a push processing test?<br /> I'm sorry, but in your example, a properly executed digital image of that work would smoke your two trannies.</em><br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

I don't do push processing tests, or clip tests, or any nonsense of that sort. It's expensive, and there are much better ways to get the exposure right. I meter carefully with an accurate and calibrated incident meter, and I shoot tests I can review on the spot without having to have the lab adjust.</p>

<p>I didn't shoot just two sheets of film. After I metered the exposure I shot a number of digital frames to judge exposure, framing, color, and so on (knowing that they would be useless from a resolution point of view) - just as I would have shot several Polaroids back before the advent of digital. Then, after I knew everything was in order, I shot two sheets of 4x5. And in fact this was just a test shoot - I'll go back and shoot the final exposures with a new backdrop, probably on print film, based on the results of this test, in a week or two, after I get detailed information about what form the final product needs to take.</p>

<p>The reason to shoot more than two sheets would not be exposure, which is easy to get right in-camera under controlled lighting conditions if you know how to meter. The reason to shoot more than two sheets would be because air movement might make a textile subject move during a half-second exposure, or because my fifty-year-old eyes might not nail the focus with an f/4.7 lens on ground glass, or because I might fail to seat the film holder correctly in the somewhat finicky Pressman back. But I double- and triple-check all those things at the time.</p>

<p>In the case I described, I'd love to hear your description of how to "properly execute" a digital image of the subject. Lots of professional photographers (which I'm not) have tried and failed.</p>

[blakley]

<p>By the way, to avoid giving the wrong impression, I do most of my shooting with an M8 (digital, of course) and I love it. It's very good at lots of things. But for this job it's completely inadequate - even moreso than the Canon 1DsMkIII or a Leaf back. For this job, film's the thing, and it's got to be BIG film. I'd rather have a passionate attachment to results than to tools.</p>

[paul_sharratt]

<p>I shoot film and digital. Each has its place. For film, I usually hoard it for awhile and then send off to a lab for processing and hi res [translated: 8x10 at 300 dpi] scanning. Lately, I've used a couple of labs in California, NCPS near San Diego and Photoworks in San Francisco, but there are many labs that offer this combination. I'd suggest try two or three and then just send your film there. This works great for me with c-41, with B&W film its ok - I just think I could get better results processing my own b&w film but then you must factor in the scanning time. If I really like an image, I will then scan it on a Nikon scanner. I can't even fathom a guess at the percentage I shoot with film and digital but with film, I'd say its 90% 120 [Holga, Mamiya, Ikonta) and 10% 35mm [Leica]. One aspect about having a lab scan your film right after processing is that the film is usually clean, it has not been paged or subjected to storage. The scans are cleaner and this does cut down on the post-processing digital clean-up time. I know several photographers that have this film/digital workflow and each simply enjoys using film, for the sake of craftsmanship in using the equipment (even the Holga) and for the aesthetics in creating a film image. Finally, in a similar vein as the cello anecdote, I'm not sure digital created images would sing the same as 30 x 40 inch prints from a sharp, properly exposed 6x7 negative.</p>

[mark cortella]

<p>Read this article for the best reason of all to use film and then transfer it to digital with a high quality scanner = <a href="http://www.vividlight.com/Articles/1513.htm">www.vividlight.com/Articles/1513.htm</a> Remember,you now have the film original as a backup. By the way,how does Hollywood back up it's digital films? It transfers them to real film stock. HA!</p>

[joel_stolarski]

<p>I stopped getting the scans, they are<br>

just too fuzzy.<br>

I get the little contact sheet thing.</p>

<p> </p>

[nzdavid]

<p>I have 18MB Noritsu scans made from transparencies at my local lab, and have found them mostly excellent -- certainly good enough for publication in a book last year. I have thought about DIY scanning but finding time gets to be a problem. Usually, I pick and choose which ones to have scanned later to save on costs, although will have them done at the same time if I am in a rush.<br>

I use a digital compact from time to time but still love slide film; there's nothing to compare. Also, factor in the joy of using a film, Leica -- its simplicity, high quality results, craftsmanship, and robustness, the facto that it just keeps on keeping on. </p>

[khi]

<p>Digital, Schmigital...</p>

[joel_stolarski]

<p>I've been using the wife's Lumix with<br>

Leica lens. On a tripod, it is unbelievably sharp.<br>

Helps to pre-visualize a shot and besides you<br>

get a decent image to photoshop.<br>

It's like using a polaroid in a way.<br>

Then shoot some film.<br>

Just got a scanner IV ED, so<br>

I'm very anxious to get it hooked up !</p>

 

[rob_oresteen1]

<p>Peter Mann - I find your posts a little self serving. If I were to quote a digital camera, an M8 would not be one of my first choices.</p>

<p>As far as film goes, like the poster a few up the thread named "Rob" as well, I too am going back to the "dead" medium known as film.</p>

<p>Just a thought - digital is often compared to the quality of film but never the other way around.</p>

<p>And for all of us here - we have to compare apples with apples:</p>

<p>When someone says that a photoshop jockey can replicate an image to look no better or worse than film in a "double blind test", is he referring to the relatively low res optics of our computer/laptop screens viewing relatively low res images or his he referring to actual prints, optical old school for film and digital/Epson for digital.</p>

<p>The proof is in the print - not what we collectively see on our computer screens viewing millions of pictures across the world.</p>

<p>The problem is getting a forum like this one together in the same building looking at real live prints - then for sure I will happily take on a "double blind test" and probably point out the difference between the two mediums 90% of the time.</p>

<p>And I'm not saying on is better than the other - I do love digital and what can be done in post - but we can't dumb down our comparisons using the LCD screen of our computers as the arbiters.</p>

[doug herr]

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5324895">Rob Oresteen</a> wrote: "<em>When someone says that a photoshop jockey can replicate an image to look no better or worse than film in a "double blind test", is he referring to the relatively low res optics of our computer/laptop screens viewing relatively low res images or his he referring to actual prints, optical old school for film and digital/Epson for digital.</em></p>

 

<p><em>The proof is in the print </em>"</p>

<p>The owner of Appel Gallery here in Sacramento - representing many photographers including one of Canon's Explorers of Light - was struck by the color quality and detail of some of the larger prints I brought to our meeting a couple of weeks ago. Among the prints I brought were some made with Nikons and Nikkors on film, Leicaflex SL on film, and the R8 with DMR. Regardless of the camera used to make the photo the prints were all made with laser printers (LightJet, Durst Lamda) on light-sensitive photographic paper. The prints from the film cameras were made from 4000 dpi scans and IMHO were far better than the darkroom prints I formerly made. At the end of our meeting he selected several prints for the gallery, all (unknown to him) made with the DMR. YMMV, but I have enough proof.</p>

 

 

[MTC Photography]

<p>Not many good films available. For me, convert to digital only applies to film shot before 2007. Now shooting digital is far more direct and simple</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Not many good films available.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you sure? </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Now shooting digital is far more direct and simple.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Possibly but so what?</p>

[frederick_muller]

<p>I agree with those who say the proof is in the print. One topic that seems to get little attention on this forum, but that has been discussed elsewhere, is differences in the calibration of monitors. Once a print has been made, everyone who views it in a given setting is looking at a common subject. Sharing photos on the forum is enjoyable, but different viewers with different monitors see different images. I get this all the time when friends see different renditions of an image I've made (different from my view and even different from each other) simply because they have different monitors. </p>

[MTC Photography]

<p>I some times shot six thousand pictures in a month long trip, that is equivalent to 250 rolls of film. Carry 250 rolls of film thru eight or nine airports ?? No way. </p>

[MTC Photography]

<p>My favourite film used to be Kodak Technical Pan, it has ultra fine grain. Discontinued<br>

You may be able to buy a roll of 150' bulk film for over 200 bucks on ebay. Crazy<br>

I still have one 150' roll in fridge, which I bought for less then $60, when TP was till on the market.<br>

My favourite color side film was Kodachrome 25, long discontinue.<br>

I occasionally shoot Ilford PanF+ in my 3 Tessinas, just to excercise the springs</p>

[blakley]

<p><em>Not many good films available</em></p>

<p>??</p>

<p>Portra 160NC is probably the best color print film ever made in terms of grain, exposure latitude, and color accuracy. Provia 100F and Velvia 50 have finer grain than any previous color slide film, and all the Kodak and Fuji slide films are better than anything (except perhaps Kodachrome) which has gone before. Ilford Pan-F is fantastically fine-grained and smooth-toned. Delta 100 and Delta 400 are also wonderful new-technology B&W, and Tri-X is still available if you prefer it. ADOX ORT 25 is perhaps not quite as good as Tech Pan, but it's very, very good. Scala is gone, but you can get better (IMO) results with a variety of films using .dr5 processing.</p>

<p>The only films which haven't been replaced by something better in my opinion are Polaroid, Kodachrome, and HIE and EIR.</p>

[MTC Photography]

<p>Another good film I liked was Agfa 25, I still have one bulk roll in fridge.</p>

[MTC Photography]

<p>Scanning film using a film scanner is extremely slow and tedious.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>I have requested a CD of my film on occassion. if it's free with the deal, absolutely....if it's not, it depends on what I shot. The scans are horrible...unless of course you ask for high rez scans, and those you pay dearly for. But, I just use the cheapo scans like I use to use contact sheets.....just a way to see the pics without having to print (or now....personally scan) them all.</p>