First attempts back to film

[don_cameron3]

<p>Hi all,<br>

It has been 20-30 years since I have done MF film. I have purchased a Rollei 6008 pro and fired off a few rolls. I am really enjoying shooting with it. Got the film processed at the lab in town and got a hi res "econo" scan on a d.lab.2 scanner. The results are crap and I am thinking I made a big mistake. Please see the attached photo.</p>

<p>In the attached picture, I shot Velvia 100. Sure it has a big green hue, perhaps thats just because the econo scan is uncorrected. But I find the rest of the picture as if it was taken with a instamatic.</p>

<p>So I am looking for advice. Even when I was using film, I never used slide film. These are handheld shots, but a 1/125 or better with 80mm lens.</p>

<p> </p>

[SCL]

<p>Where's the attached picture?</p>

[don_cameron3]

<p>Its coming, its coming... </p>

<p><img src="http://i1339.photobucket.com/albums/o710/LostInSpace9230/dia_0825_zps4adee961.jpg" alt="" width="1013" height="1024" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i1339.photobucket.com/albums/o710/LostInSpace9230/dia_0823_zps654e7970.jpg" alt="" width="1013" height="1024" /></p>

<p> </p>

[DWScott]

<p>It's a bit tough to judge from low-res JPGs on the internet. But I do have some (random) thoughts. For perspective, I shoot Pentax DSLRs and mix in film (both 35mm and medium format.)</p>

<p>There is a fundamental difference between shooting and printing film optically, and shooting film and scanning it. Especially when the scanner is anything but the best. The two processes are different, the results are different; and most of the time, the results from shooting film and scanning it are lacklustre. Whereas I was consistently happy with 8x10s optically printed from 35mm, now I am regularly disappointed by the lack of apparent resolution and the over-emphasized grain that I get from most scans. Medium format (I shoot 645 in a Bronica ETR; I also shoot 6x6 and have shot some 6x9) is the minimum requirement for me to get pleasing results from scanned film. The grain doesn't overwhelm the scans, and you can see the nice tonality that film offers.</p>

<p>But there is a huge range in scan quality too. I find the quicky (1500x1000) scans from the Fuji Frontiers are basically useless. The colours are wrong, the image is oversharpened and lacking in detail. If I get 3000x2000 scans from a Noritsu are much more pleasing. They have enough detail to be printable to 8x10, they have OK colour and they aren't overly sharpened. Still, the scans aren't really what you could get from the film optically printed, and don't quite compare to a modern DSLR.</p>

<p>The best scans I've had were made on Imacon / Hasselblad scanners. These scans were effectively perfect (to me.) The colours were very accurate, and very true to life with no colour casts. There was plenty of resolution in the picture, but grain was minimized instead of being accentuated. Blown up large, these scans compete very well with high resolution DSLRs. The only word I can use is "transparent" - as in, I don't see any trace of the scanner itself in the image. You just see your image, clear and unadulterated. While it competes well with DSLRs, it still preserves the nuance of why you shot film itself -- a beautiful sense of detail that holds up when you print large, because the grain seems to contain MORE image instead of simply being random noise. The highlights hold lots of detail.</p>

<p>Your photographs themselves look beautiful - but they do look like they've been scanned. I would pick a couple of nice frames, and spring for really good quality scans. Then you will have a reference point --- "this is HOW GOOD I can make this film stuff look in a digital workflow." Either that's good enough, or it's not. It's convenient enough, or it's not. It's cheap enough, or it's too expensive. Only you can decide.</p>

<p>For me, I keep shooting film. I like the process. I like the results. But I don't get rid of my digital cameras, and when I really like a shot I know I will need to spend more on a good scan.</p>

[don_cameron3]

<p>David, thank you for the in-depth reply. I really enjoy the shooting aspect with a film camera, and would really like to make a go of it. It's probably a combination of nostalgia and really wanting to slow down and create art versus just "shoot" a picture. Film helps to force me into this mode of thinking/creating.<br>

I really like your suggestion about getting a couple of frames professionally scanned and corrected on an Imacon. It will give me an idea of what I can shoot for (pun intended).</p>

<p> </p>

[SCL]

<p>Hi Dave -finally got a look at the pictures. The scans looks to me like a less than fully trained tech did little in color balancing and image focus/sharpening. I think David's comments are pretty much on the button. Most of the scans I've had done by processors, except for the really true professionals, fall into the category of "quick proofs", meaning I either scan the keepers myself or send the negs to a professional firm for high quality scans.</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>Velvia 100 is one of the hardest films to scan. The uncorrected scan will have too much violet in areas that were originally gray. At least that is what I get from a Plustek 120/Silverfast combination. Trying to correct that, sometimes causes other colors to be off. Color cast corrections (pipette) work on some V100 shots, others not so well. Velvia 100f, Velvia 50, Provia 100 and Provia 400X all scan pretty good however. I have seen bad scans from the Hasselblad X5 which proves that the operator is a very important factor in the scanning process. A real pro on a Plustek can easily beat a novice on the Hasselblad X5. As my scanning abilities improve, I can get a pretty close approximation to my original slide. Any good scan takes time. If one tries to rush things, it is going to get ugly. Many times, lab scanned work will be time limited, so the results can be mediocre for the value scans. Paying more gives the operator more time to do it right. <br>

<br /> I would not give up on shooting film with this one bad scan experience.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Try some Kodak Portra 400, another lab, and a tripod.</p>

[don_cameron3]

<p>Thanks for the help gang. All great stuff. I was expecting better stuff "out of the box" with the lab, but it looks like - as usual - the devil is in the details.<br>

Another question I have - is there any benefit to me sticking with slide film or should I go over to a negative film? Since it seems the operator judgement is really required for both slide and negative, does the argument of slide vs negative get somewhat reduced?</p>

 

[AlanKlein]

<p>Dave: I don't shoot too much Velvia 100 but rather Velvia 50. Here are scans of both with my under $200 Epson V600.</p>

<p>Velvia 100 <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/tags/velvia100/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/tags/velvia100/</a><br>

Velvia 50 <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/tags/velvia/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/tags/velvia/</a></p>

<p>I like Velvia 50 over 100 because I use a tripod all the time anyway and the 50 has finer grain and colors for me. Velvia 50 is hard on skin tones and difficult to correct but I like for my landscapes. I tried color negative film like Ektar 100 but find it more difficult to scan. Plus, since I bracket, I can tell immediately which of the bracketed Velvia film is correct before the scan where by with negative color it's more involved. Why don't you shoot a roll of a few types and see what you like. If you get your own scanner, you'll have more control over the results although there is a learning curve involved.</p>

<p>I like chromes over negative anyway because the higher contrast and more dramatic colors are appealing to me.</p>

<p>MF film is great. Like you said, it slows you down and allows thinking and better and more consistent results. Good luck, Alan.</p>

[dale_edward]

<p>Dave,<br>

You should be quite happy with the Rollei 6008 Pro medium format camera. If you shoot slide E6 film, your exposure will have to be spot on. With Velvia 100, I often found that underexposing by 1/2 stop often produced more appealing contrast and color hues. Shoot a roll of E6 slide film such as Provia 100, and send it to Dwayne's Photo in Parsons, Kansas for developing since they maintain very strict standards on their E6 chemical calibration and temperatures. When you receive your roll of slide film back, view your images on a light box with a loupe, and I think you'll be quite impressed with what you see. Dwayne's also does an excellent job with printing C41 color negative film. Get a roll of Kodak 160 Portra film and have Dwayne's make some 5"x5" color prints from your 6cm x 6cm Rollei. This should provide you with a small glimpse as to the type of images that this camera will produce. <br>

The main advantage of using a medium format camera is that it will enable you to make big enlargements like 30"x30" and retain a good amount of sharpness with little grain. A high end digital camera can often produce more sharpness than even the best film medium format cameras such as a Rollei or a Hasselblad can, but film still has that unique look and contrast that is different than what a digital sensor produces. <br>

A steady tripod, a cable release, and an incident meter such as a Sekonik L-358 meter, represent a few tools that will enable you to make some very impressive photographs. <br>

Remember that the end product will only be as good as your weakest link.<br>

Dale</p>

 

[q.g._de_bakker]

Unless you project images (the only reason to put up with the restrictions of slide film. But then, most images are projected digitally nowadays, so it's better to have a film that scans well), you'd do better using negative film. More to play with during exposure. Better dynamic rang. Scans easier.<br><br>You can obviously see a positive image when looking at a slide, which might appear to be an advantage.<br>But that does not mean it is easier to predict how the scan will turn out, and negatives are (also) quite easy to judge.<br>But you will have to tweak colour (and the rest) with both anyway. You could try to tweak it such that the colour in the scan is closest to the original, which would suggest it would be necessary to see the true colours of the original, i.e. can't work with negatives.<br>But the aim is to get the colours the way they should be, which isn't at all necessarily the same as they are in the slide. When adjusting colour, the only thing you need to see is the image you are tweaking. So no need for slides.<br>Kodak Portra is a beautiful film, which also scans extremely well.<br><br>The problem with having scans done is that the operators do not tweak each individual scan. Using profiles for different types of film sounds great, but only works if all the images that are to be scanned are perfect in every way, and you happen to like the outcome of using the settings used by the profile. But images are all different, different scenes, exposed differently, having a different purpose, i.e. need to express a different 'mood', etc. Not treating scans individually is throwing away the creative possibilities this step in processing provides. And since this proces needs your direction, you can only trust scanning to someone else if he or she knows you and what you want very well. So best is to get a good scanner and do the work yourself.<br><br>And now the really controversial bit: bracketing is something that makes no sense when you know your film.<br>You will know what it can and cannot accomodate, where things will go wrong, and adjust accordingly without having to hope that if you spread things a bit there may be one image that is usable. And if the scene you are trying to capture is too much for the film you are using, bracketing will produce a series of unusable results.<br>You could bracket to postpone having to decide how to expose for a scene, yes. But that's just being undecided. Lazy too perhaps. ;-)<br>So get to know your film, learn how to meter, and never ever bracket again.<br>Bracketing, by the way, is something done almost exlusively by people using reversal film. There's a lesson in that. So again: use negative film.

[c_watson1]

<p>Crappy E-6 processing is also easier to find today than ever before. Demand for slide processing has cratered in N. America and many labs just don't run tight E-6 lines any longer--if they process slides at all. Different story for C-41. With respect, your shots seem to be suffering from iffy processing and sloppy scanning. Try some Portra.</p>

[don_cameron3]

<p>Thanks all for the detailed replies. It looks as though I have some experimentation to do, in terms of film, labs as well as home scanning. </p>

<p>Alan, I am very pleased to see your great results with a $200 home scanner. </p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>Dave:<br>

I find shooting B&W film, developing it at home and scanning on flatbed epson scanner a good workflow. I have full control over the process and do not have to rely on "someone doing something" to my film. Give it a consideration.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Velvia 100 is biased toward red. If you take the red out in post you will see a result that is usually pleasing depending on the subject. Velvia 100 is a very subject specific film IMO. Velvia 50 is more general, other than skin tones. I am not a scan master, but it lends to logic that scans should not be adjusted for theoretical color characteristics of a particular film. The scan needs to project what is seen. Again Velvia 100 has a lot of red in it, and if you can adjust it out, thereby adding Cyan, you will see a compound result, depending on the level of adjustment avoiding going too unrealistic. I was once miffed at Velvia 100, but now use it when I'm willing to be surprised, and depending on the subject the surprises can be your friend.</p>

[gerry b.]

<p>It wasn't clear to me from your original post whether you liked the original transparencies in terms of their color balance? If so, then yes, you need to find a better processing and scanning service. If you decide to go with learning how to scan yourself with a scanner like the Epson flatbeds, then I think you will find that scanning transparencies for producing files for printing is easier to get into than scanning negative film. There are tricks in the scanning process that eventually make negative scanning no big deal, but it takes some experimentation to learn them. In general, there is a whole set of principles that need to be learned to become adept at scanning, which is one reason to find a lab that you like, and have them do it. Since you are using such high quality equipment to create the image, it would be a waste to lose that quality in processing and "post-processing". Just some thoughts, your mileage may vary.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>I have occasionally thought of going back to MF myself though I would probably go for a Pentax 67. To me the main jolt I get from going back to film is that I have got used the neutrality of digital colour and film takes a bit of re-adjustment. The second re-adjustment would be having to be a bit less trigger happy than with digital. But I think for me the days of film are over except for the occasional outing for one of my classic cameras.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Sorry the film days are over for you. You were just getting to the best part when you said you would have to be less trigger happy than with digital. I think its a good exercise to contemplate the picture, verses wasting frames. I don't see the point of incessantly pressing the button searching for a result that wasn't there in the first place.</p>

[danielheller]

<p>Don +1</p>