If we shoot film then scan

[denniswms]

<p>

 

<p>Well lets see. I am fully capable of focusing for myself. Setting an exposure. Deciding on what I want to shoot and taking one frame to obtain it. I know what should be recorded in B&W and what should be recorded in color before hand. I am not a professional sports photographer. In over twenty five years I have never had a client whose interests were best served by shooting their product in the dark. I am fully capable of eyelash detail with a MF camera and lens...even though it's handheld and I'm shooting 100ASA film. </p>

<p>If you eliminate the need for AF, FPS, IS, high ISO, low weight, a spray and pray work ethic or auto exposure you're left with a 3 2 aspect ratio and reduced IQ. Given what I have... not so appealing. </p>

 

</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Well I use film exclusively, but I don't scan negatives, I make b&w and colour prints in a darkroom. Nice quality photographs are much more satisfying to look at than images on a computer screen, and are less costly than printing from digital files. </p>

<p> </p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Mark Deneen and I may have been twins separated at birth. <br />His views on film and digital are exactly like mine!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Possibly triplets....</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I like film, I like the different choices of film especialy B&W film. I like the different types of film cameras. I like developing my own B&W film with a choice of developers. I like printing it in a darkroom. I like that I don't need to rely on a computer to produce B&W prints in my own home. I like that my enlarger does not need a software upgrade because I changed cameras. I like that the enlarger is a simple device that is easy to repair. I like that the enlarger won't crash and take my photos with it. I still use a DSLR though and would not want to just shoot only film, today there is no reason to choose one or the other as both are available and both can produce excelent or terrible results.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I shot this on film.<br>

<a title="small_church_norway by photogsjm, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4116/4932782374_e96d15f4d5.jpg" alt="small_church_norway" width="330" height="500" /></a><br>

I would expect I would take the same shot with a DSLR</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>This one was with a DSLR<br>

<a title="Churcg_Turku_2 by photogsjm, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4124/5038875497_14d3850208.jpg" alt="Churcg_Turku_2" width="500" height="335" /></a><br>

Probably would have taken the same shot on color film</p>

[f_ph1]

<p>Why not save a few steps? Because I have yet to own a digital camera I can do this with.</p><div></div>

[Brad_]

Stuart M nailed it...<P>

 

Six or seven years ago many times people would email or ask me on photonet what film and developer I used

to produce B&W images that I posted online. I think some were disappointed to learn that they were digital captures. From

a Sony F707 point and shoot and a Canon 20D dSLR.<P>

 

It's been a few years since someone has asked me that question. No doubt because anybody that wants

to take a small amount time to learn digital, can get results that can surpass film. Especially with modern

dSLRs and post processing tools which today make it so easy. I still get positive comments in general though about

photos posted on my <a href= "http://www.citysnaps.net/blog/">blog</a>. Fortunately, most people have moved on

from the notion that photography and the strength of photographs is about gear, capture medium, technology, etc.

[matthew_rusbarsky]

<p>"Stuart M nailed it..."<br>

Not for me. Stuart style of work is such that he can reach the same endpoint by two different paths. That's not always possible. </p>

[davewittemann]

<p>Rb67 and XP2. Done at the lab.</p><div></div>

[charles_stobbs3]

I usually take and view pictures using transparency film. I only scan to get a picture for e-mailing or posting on photonet. I have heard of services that do the reverse, transfer digital to slide film but don't know how good they are and in any case it would not make sense if I want the majority on transparencies to begin with.

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Could be Matthew that for what and how I shoot it does not make much different which path I choose or it could be that what ever path I choose I find a way to get a result thats pleasing for me.</p>

<p><a title="emma_reading by photogsjm, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4145/5039495618_6d64270381.jpg" alt="emma_reading" width="500" height="316" /></a><br>

<a title="painting by photogsjm, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1136/5114342129_1a0ffbccce.jpg" alt="painting" width="500" height="328" /></a></p>

[bj_larsson]

<p>Simple. Shooting film feels different and changes how I go about shooting. And the results turn out different. I can afford to shoot medium format in film. I get to experience "LOMO" cameras like the Holga. Lenses are different, I love the 105 f2.5 Nikkor. Manual focusing is not the same on a digital body, and you have to deal with crop factors.</p>

<p>I have room to develop at home, but printing would be problematic. Scanning negatives leads to a 'good' workflow, at least to me. Most of my photos I share online, so somewhere there has to be a transition from analog to digital. </p>

[gregory_c]

<p>Someone said::<br>

<em>"Why not just use digital? Because I care about the slow process, to me film has history and it means something to me."</em><br>

Good answer,<br>

another answer:<br>

<em>When using highly automated digital cameras I found it too easy to simply keep clicking away until the right image popped out. With film, I take one - or maybe bracket - and then I move on - film costs money. Later it is intriguing to see how well I did</em><br>

<em>,,,, I am also still playing vinyl LP records on a turntable, and find them utterly more enjoyable to listen to (and play with) than CDs.</em><br>

A sound engineer friend of mine told me that vinyl records have a much better sound quality than CD's and espically MP3. Because a large amount of the higher & lower frequencies which are suppossedly are unheard, are removed to make the files smaller.</p>

[rashed_s]

<p>The more time put in an image the more interesting it become.</p>

[wayne_crider4]

<p>Just another film vs digital debate put another way. Will it never end?</p>

[tholte]

 

<p>"Just another film vs digital debate put another way. Will it never end?" No, it will go on and on and on .......</p>

 

[markdeneen]

<p>I think the debate is fascinating. I can't imagine what's wrong with that discussion? I'd suppose when people stop being interested, there'd be no forum postings.</p>

[wogears]

<blockquote>

<p>I wonder if Steve McCurry was thinking how he would PS his Afghan Girl photo when he took it on 35mm Kodachrome with an FM2 manual camera back in 1985?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Of course he wasn't. His post-processing was done in the prepress department at <em>National Geographic</em> by some of the best color hands who ever lived. I will also point out the McCurry was able to 'set up' that particular shot to control contrast range. This made sure that it could be printed exactly as he wished. It's a masterpiece, no question. It resides (legally) on my desktop to remind me just what photography can do, but the image I see is <em>not</em> a grain-by-grain exact replica of the original 'chrome.</p>

 

[gregory_c]

<p>John asked ::<br>

<em>Why do you want to know?</em><br>

Not sure, I do miss film, people tell me to shoot it & scan it. If it will end up in a digital format, why not go ahead & shoot digital. Do remember, your computer, like mine, is filling up with 1000's & 1000's of images. 85+% of them you will never print. When you shot film, you printed them & had a hard back-up. But like me, you have stacks/albums of photos, negatives here & there. Then you find yourself scanning the photos to correct beacuse they are turning yellow. Its never ending,,,,,</p>

[rossb]

<p> Yesterday I decided to go to Point Lobos for a couple hours and to walk around. I looked at my camera's and picked up the FM2n to take with me. I could have taken my D200 or another film camera. I had a great time out there with my little camera. I found a doe and she let me take some photos of her for a while and then started snorting at me so I moved on. I snapped off a few frames of Ektar and then I ran out of film so I quickly re-loaded with some 160VC and shot a few more frames with a bit of fill flash. It was fun. Also some shots of the coast line and some Cypress tree's. If I would have taken the digital I would have easily been able to shoot shots of the doe without a tripod, no film reloading or anything. Just point and shoot. But I will always remember reloading my camera hoping the doe stays around. I am very fast at it but it still is a thing. I also had to set my tripod down and mount the camera as I needed to shoot at 1/30th of a second. No cranking up the ISO. You have to work with what you have. I probably have blurring on a few shots but I know I got some very nice pictures also with the beautiful Monterey Cypress trees in the back ground. Anyway the FM2n made the experience fun for me. That's what it is all about for me. Something to do that is fun and a nice shot also.</p>

[markdeneen]

<blockquote>

<p>Something to do that is fun and a nice shot also.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nice story Ross. I absolutely have that experience all the time with my various old film cameras.</p>

[hugo_laporte]

<p>First, I find that film makes me think more before pressing the shutter.<br>

Second, I like to handle film, it feels REAL, not like digital files.<br>

Third, a digital 6x6 system costs about 30 000$.<br>

... But yeah, it's somewhat a geek thing. I like old cameras.</p>

 

[hjoseph7]

<p>I allways wondered about that myself. Why shoot film then scan ? Well allot of people don't have a darkroom, or they use to have a darkromm but got rid of it during the "Great Darkroom Dump-off " that happened during the years 2000-2005 and is still happening as we speak. Let's face it scanning film into photoshop then making prints on an inkjet printer is allot easier than going back into the darkroom. I still have my darkroom equipment, but I usually wait until I have a good batch of negatives to print. It would be a waste of time to set up all that stuff chemicals, wash, dry etc for just a couple of prints. Then there is the clean-up after that.</p>

[paul_chaplo2]

<p>With film photography, t's not just a matter of expediency, it's the aesthetics and craft of the materials. Just as a paint and brush are not the same as a digital tablet and a monitor. There is an innate to physically handling the materials. I must say that shooting 4x5 taught me so much - especially patience!<br>

Wishing You Great Light!<br>

Paul<br>

<b>Signature URL removed. Please read photo.net's Terms of Use and Community Guidelines</b>