why use film and scan?

[bravin_neff]

<p>Because I like it.</p>

[chrisnielsen]

<p>I can't get an optical print from colour film any more, i don't have the time or inclination to learn colour printing, and the minilab CDs I've tried tend to blow, so I'd rather scan myself and then I have total control over the finished product. My Coolscan doesn't take up much room either.</p>

<p>Plus, when I'm dead and buried it will be easy to get at my negatives if anyone needs to, far easier than to crack my rotating 20 digital random character password on my Mac.</p>

[randyhargraves]

<p>A digital file from scanned velvia will still show the grain character and rich color that's present in slide film. Certainly it won't compare to looking at the slide directly on a lightbox or projected, but a good scan will retain much of the "look" that keeps people shooting slide film over digital capture. </p>

[dan_south]

<p>I used to have my slides printed onto Cibachrome (Ilfochrome Classic), but the vast majority of the Cibachrome labs have closed down or discontinued the process. Plus, I'd like to be able to display my film images online. It's also reassuring to have digital "safety copies" of one's best negatives and chromes.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>I like the cameras themselves better.</p>

[ted_marcus1]

<p>I switched to digital five years ago, but I have a large library of slides and negatives from before the switch. I have recently begun a project of making new scans of film images I scanned ten or more years ago. I have much better hardware, software, and skills than I had then, so the new scans are significantly improved (and higher resolution) than the old ones. Keeping the original film readily allows upgrading to new technology and techniques when they become available.<br>

On the other hand, scanning film is a much more arduous process than using a digital camera. Film scanning is slow, and even with good infrared cleaning requires significant time for the tedious and uncreative work of finding and fixing the "hickeys" of dust, scratches, and artifacts from infrared cleaning before any actual work can begin. That's one thing I don't miss at all; and I'm willing to trade reduced pixel counts for not having to do the tedious stuff.<br>

I also find that shooting exclusively raw digital files provides something like the upgrade advantage available with film. Even the "legacy" version of Adobe Camera Raw in CS3 is better than what I was using five years ago, so I have "upgraded" some of my earliest digital camera files with beneficial results.<br>

I suppose that what it ultimately comes down to is preference. If you like film and film cameras, you'll choose to scan film. If you prefer digital, you'll use that.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I like the results, and I like my old cameras.</p>

[bartleby_jones]

<p>They give you (arguably) better results and image quality as your image is stored in the form of tiny crystals rather than tiny square pixels. The quality of high end film specific scanners are higher than most DSLRS that most of us can afford, Film is interchangeable and typically works better than a digital ISO setting, Older film SLRS are cheaper and in some cases easier to maintain(I recently borrowed a thirty year old OM-1 from my professor and it gave me better looking shots than my DSLR and was much more sturdy) and the best part, after the untimely crash of your harddrive and loss of all those digital shots you meant to back up but didn't becuase you didn't want to spend a day burning your images to cd's and dvd's your scanned shots negatives will still be in the large unorganized box in the corner of your office :)</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>Pierre makes a simple yet important point. If you enjoy the tool you use, then you will use it more. There is no such thing as a fully mechanical digicam, and whilst the Leica M8/M9 is as close as we've come, it's not the same as holding a Nikon F or Leica M. Shooting with a film camera is a different experience to shooting with digital, and it certainly isn't for everyone, Not only is it physically a different experience, but it is different pshycologically as well. There are times when I need the extra quality of film, but other times I cherish the "tangible" experience, as it was described above. I just feel so detached from the whole process when using my digicams. And whilst, for me, nothing beats b&w, developed and printed in my darkroom, feeding that roll of 135 film into the scanner is still a rewarding experience.</p>

[james_symington1]

<p>I use and enjoy both but I find the satisfaction of using film somehow greater so perhaps 40% of my shooting is still film (most of that 35mm and some 120). With a good scanner, a lot of practise using it and some careful sharpening the results from 35mm can be extraordinarily good.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>I just like the beautiful precisions mechanical cameras, the feel, the sound of them, the handling, like they are absolute jewel Olympus OM-1 OM-2 s the Nikon FM, FE etc. To days, even the smallest digital Nikon D40 still a fat gay. Ohh.! The solid feel of the Nikon F, no meter. Hardly have ever an under or over exposed images. Mostly b/w or some time the beautiful Velvia. Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 doing a nice work for me. It is a joy and pleasure to work with them. Ok. I have to go now and scan my 5 roll of Velvias and a couple of rolls of b/w. </p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>I just like the beautiful precisions mechanical cameras, the feel, the sound of them, the handling, like they are absolute jewel Olympus OM-1 OM-2 s the Nikon FM, FE etc. To days, even the smallest digital Nikon D40 still a fat gay. Ohh.! The solid feel of the Nikon F, no meter. Hardly have ever an under or over exposed images. Mostly b/w or some time the beautiful Velvia. Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 doing a nice work for me. It is a joy and pleasure to work with them. Ok. I have to go now and scan my 5 roll of Velvias and a couple of rolls of b/w. </p>

[john_tran14]

<p>With film cameras, there are films and there are cameras. I can use one camera with many different film types and I can use many different cameras with the same film type that I like. In other words the film are interchangable, I dont have to buy one camera to use Kodak films and another to use Fuji films</p>

<p>We all know how important to have a camera with interchangable lenses instead of a fixed lens. It is as much important that our cameras can use interchangable films/sensors. Most people must spend a lot of money to buy a new DSLR just because they want the new sensor. For example, just imagine how frustrasted we would be if Nikon says "You cannot use the newest film types made by Kodak with the F6 or any Nikon cameras made before that. You will need a new $2000 Nikon F7 to be able to use new Kodak films. Or even worse if Canon says "you need to buy the new Canon EOS 1V plus to use all the 35mm Fuji films and still no Canon cameras will accept new Kodak films"</p>

[lobalobo]

<p>Because I shoot 4x5 Provia in a sub $500 used camera (including lenses) and digitize using a sub $400 scanner and because it would cost me more than $20,000 to replicate the image quality with digital capture from the start. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against progress; if I had the money I'd have a MF digital system in a heartbeat and leave my old film equipment out as a display item. Sadly, I don't have a spare $20,000 to $30,000 sitting around.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Because it's fun?</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>Sometimes I don't want to shoot raw and process the image- I like how slide films look and just want the image to look like how Fuji intended. Seriously.</p>

<p>I also like using manual focus SLRs with their massive viewfinders and taking my time to compose with prime lenses.</p>

[movingfinger]

<p>Duh, because if I matte and frame a 35mm or 120 neg or slide and hang that on the wall it looks pretty stupid. It certainly does not look like the scene I was pointing the camera at and that I wish to display, at least not without backlighting and squinting.</p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>In my case, I scan film because it's a low-cost substitute for having (and knowing how to operate in) a darkroom. I don't see any fundamental conflict between both types of technology in terms of quality, but I agree with everyone else here that it is often a lot more fun to shoot film, not only because of the feel and sound of the equipment, but also because sometimes it's more fun to wait for the results instead of seeing them instantly. There's another aspect which is the handling of the material carrier, developed film is relatively fragile and transparent but also more directly represents the images it carries, at least compared to memory cards. A bit similar to my appreciation of handling larger but more fragile and harder to replace vinyl records versus (to me) the unevocative and easily copied/disposed of compact disks or DVDs.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I shoot and print digitally for 35mm but also shoot Medium format if I want to make a serious landscape print. Maybe because I never tried it before but is there a reason to do a $150 drum scan and print it on an epson. Is it better quality that traditional enlargement?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have no experience with drum scans and will probably never be able to afford those, but like Chi I would be interested to see comments or answers about those - and it looks like his followup question may have gotten submerged in our outpourings of analog love :)</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p><em>I understand photographers who still shoot with films and do enlargements. Can someone tell me what is the purpose for those who shoot in film then scan and print digitally?</em></p>

<p>This thread has predictably digressed into the "film vs digital" mode. The original question, quoted above, was something else. My take on the question is "Why scan vs a conventional darkroom approach?" It boils down to convenience, control and consistency.</p>

<p>I have done both, but having worked in a professional darkroom (newspaper), it is hard to accept anything less for home use. That never worked out for a variety of reasons - space, plumbing and construction skills and the cost. By the time I had these things worked out, darkroom equipment was pretty hard to find, so things were put on hold. Meanwhile, I shot a lot of slides because commercial printing was expensive and of low quality. I bought my first film scanner in the late nineties, for publishing purposes, and a photo printer shortly thereafter.</p>

<p>Color printers were pretty grim throughout most of the nineties - 16 colors and slow. What an epiphany to see what you could do with an Epson 9xx (I forget which model). It's been downhill ever since.</p>

<p>I see a scanner as the replacement for an enlarger and associated paraphernalia. It holds the film and exposes a sensitive medium - a digital sensor. You don't need much space, nor a dark room. It holds the film consistently flat, and is sharp from corner to corner (with the right holder). Unlike an enlarger, it works at a single magnification and can be optimized for a flat field and high image quality. I see Photoshop as a replacement for dodging, burning and de-dusting. The printer is kinda' like hanging prints up to dry once the real work has been done.</p>

<p>I think the largest conventional print I personally made was 16x20". That was using 11x14" trays, working on a diagonal. I had to turn the enlarger backwards and put the paper on the floor. You get the picture - not something you'd do routinely. These days, a 17" printer (e.g., Epson 3880) is well within reach of an home user, and a 16x20 is no harder to make than a letter-sized print.</p>

<p>My darkroom experience was mostly black and white, in which you have a lot of control over density and contrast compared to wet color printing. With a scanner and inkjet (or dye sub), you have just as much control over color printing (and can still do a credible job with black and white). The transition from film to digital imaging was a minor step by comparison - easier than changing to a different brand of film.</p>

<p> </p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p>I just replaced my old scanner with a new Epson that Does film and slides. I have been having a blast scanning my old film and blowing them way beyond the size prints I had made back in the 70's, and I can tweak them in the digital dark room. I was really impressed with the quality I was am getting. I can also start scanning my dad and moms old B&W film and slides going back into the 40's. There is a lot to be said for film. I love my Canon 40D, but I have a great respect for film even though it is a little expensive per shot compared to digital.</p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>Maybe something to add to Edward's explanation: minimizing<a href="http://www.ehs.ufl.edu/HMM/photo.htm"> chemical hazards</a> around the house. In my case my college job involves more than enough potential exposure to a variety of harmful lab chemicals, in a line of research that seems to raise the odds for incidence of cancers. My wife (who's in the same line of business) already went through cancer diagnosis and (fortunately) surgical removal at an early stage. Electronics are not without their own hazards, but a scanner and pc/mac are a lot less worrisome in that respect than bottles and trays with the various solutions needed for/during darkroom work.</p>

[hjoseph7]

The thing about scaning is that no matter how great the scanner is, you are still getting a second generation copy of the original. I have a scanner at home, but I rarely go over 8X10 prints from 35mm or 11X14 for medium format. I mostly use it to upload pictures to the web.

[blumesan]

<p>Edward's answer is the only one that really addresses the question as posed by the OP. There is nothing I can add to that.</p>

<p>However I was heartened to read several of the responses that emphasized the preference for shooting film based primarily on the "feel", ergonomics, size, weight, and aesthetics of a high quality 35mm apparatus. In my case a Contax RTS-II which has been happily clicking away for 25+ years. I was happy to know that many others share my feelings in this regard. It's just more fun! Having said that, 80% of my images are made with a digital SLR, which I fully expect to require replacement long before my Contax bites the dust.</p>

[cameracrack]

<p>Though I have a digital camera and plan on getting a DSLR in the fall, I will always prefer film and my manual cameras over digital. In the last year I have built a small collection of vintage cameras. I love using them all.<br>

Manual cameras force you to learn how to really use a camera. It's too easy for just anyone to pick up a DSLR and take a nice picture.<br>

It's fun to manipulate film yourself and not through a program. DIY is the best way to do anything. Knowing that you did it on your own. I guess it's self-actualizing.<br>

I'll be digitally scanning my film negatives because I want to share them with everyone and preserve them should anything happen to the negatives or prints.</p>

 

[mlg28]

<p>Here's another angle on this...<br>

If you accept that a properly-scanned 35 mm slide has at least the image quality of a decent DSLR (and I don't want to get into that argument) then scanning makes every old, cheap 35 mm SLR a surrogate DSLR. I shoot Nikon, so I have one pool of lenses shared among half a dozen bodies...one of which is digital, and the others are "kinda digital." This lets me have one at work, one in my briefcase, a few at home, etc...which I could not afford to do with a bunch of D200, D300, etc bodies.<br>

<br />With a 50 mm f/1.8, my N80 is a very cheap, high-quality "DSLR" that I can bang around, drop in the surf etc. I have to wait a week to get the film back, but not all my photos require "right now" results. And if they do, I have a DSLR.</p>