Is It Worth It?

[dennis_oconnor6]

<p>This is not intended to be a stupid question.<br>

Is there any advantage in shooting black and white negative film with the deliberate intention of scanning it to produce digital negatives. Or should I just shoot digital and convert it using software. I suppose one advantage is I will still have a negative to print from in the darkroom. And I still like shooting and processing film.</p>

[SCL]

<p>It is worth it if you enjoy the use of film cameras (I do) and the processing of film. If you don't enjoy those aspects, digital is just fine.</p>

[andylynn]

In terms of the image you can end up with, there's not much you can do with b&w film that you can't do with a good digital

camera, raw files and skillful postprocessing. But of course you don't get the same tactile experience. If you enjoy working

with film, I say go ahead and work with film.

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Just realized I'm typing Stephen's first sentence, pretty much word for word.</p>

<p>I've been shooting a little Tri-X, with a Pentax K1000. Picked it up in a thrift store, maybe 2 years back. I've only shot four rolls so far, then home processed. I still have to scan the latest film: processed and sleeved it 2~3 weeks back. Starting to procrastinate more and more, though.</p>

<p>One advantage I can see to film is it's longevity. Many of my images are from film shot in the '70's and onward. I don't know that they'd have survived if they'd been a succession of digital media.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Agree with the point about tactile experience, but I think most of that is to do with printing and if you're going to scan then that's going to be the same either way, and there isn't much of the "working with film" sensation in shooting, processing and scanning. Unless you're into big cameras and extremely detailed prints, I tend to agree that you can achieve about everything from a digital startpoint. </p>

[dennis_oconnor6]

<p>Thank you all for the prompt responses. I had not considered the longevity of film compared to digital storage. So it looks like (apart from the pleasure of shooting/processing film) for digital negatives - shoot digital. I have a Nikon D90 bye the way.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I don't think that anyone could consistently tell the difference between a digital and a film process image in a true double-blind test of the images.</p>

<p>So it really <em>is</em> a matter of whether you want the darkroom experience or not.<br>

Is it re-enactment to recover a lost youth, for example, or a back to the roots experience like not using power tools? </p>

<p>Here is what one of the greatest darkroom workers of all times had to say:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I give full credit to the excellent scientists and technicians involved in the photographic industry. The research, development, and design aspects, as well as production, are extraordinary. However, very few photographic manufacturing technicians comprehend photography as an art form, or understand the kinds of equipment the creative person requires. The standards are improving in some areas, however: in my opinion modern lenses approach the highest possible levels of perfection, and today's negative and printing materials are superior to anything I have known and used in the past. I am sure the next step will be the electronic image, and I hope I shall live to see it. I trust that the creative eye will continue to function, whatever technological innovations may develop.<br /><br />Ansel Adams, 1983 <em>Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs</em>. Little, Brown and Company. p.59<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>And I still like shooting and processing film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess that's the whole answer. Not sure whether it's the darkroom experience, though, or a re-enactment in ways.... Speaking for myself (only!), I'm about to get the needed tools to develop B&W, part because I want to learn to do it, and part because I want to be able to try more emulsions than just the C41 chromogenic films I use now (and scan at home after having it developed). Biggest part is because I quite like using the film cameras I own, and shoot mostly B&W anyway (in digital as well); somehow I like the restriction of really having no colour, though sometimes having the choice (as you do in digital) is ideal too. Part is also that physical interaction (tactile experience as mentioned above) as an additional step in creating my images seems to fulfill an end-to-end path. Yes, a better printer with proper papers is also a matter of time :-) A darkroom is impossible for me at the moment, much as I'd like to learn that too. In short: do what you like (I know I will). Making your images should be done in a process you enjoy - doesn't really matter what others think about it.<br>

The point of longeivty, I'm not sure how valid that is. Digital did not yet have had the time to prove how long its output will last. Plenty people have badly stored negatives that are useless after 10 years, and I think the same is valid for digital. But with good care (backups and sane workflow), there doesn't need to be a reason that digital would last shorter than physical negatives.</p>

<p>It's not an exclusive choice anyway - once you shoot some film, you can still also use digital. There is strengths to both, and not a single reason why you wouldn't enjoy both.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>You might consider using colour negative film and converting the scans to monochrome on your computer. For prints under the enlarger there used to be a special paper: it was called Panalure, I think.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

I wish I could give a simple answer!

Optical prints are much more desirable

than digital ones. Digital prints are easy

and cheap. But because of that they

have little value.

 

Optical prints can be mass produced

as well, but by their nature cannot be

imitated by digital prints.

 

OTOH if you do not have a darkroom,

there's no point worrying about it.

[dennis_oconnor6]

<p>"I wish I could give a simple answer! Optical prints are much more desirable than digital ones. Digital prints are easy and cheap. But because of that they have little value.<br /> Optical prints can be mass produced as well, but by their nature cannot be imitated by digital prints.<br /> OTOH if you do not have a darkroom, there's no point worrying about it."</p>

<p>Thank you for your response.<br /> I do have a darkroom. Hence the question regarding 'Digital Negatives'. I usually make them from digital images taken with my Nikon D90. I was just wondering if there might be a longer 'grey scale' if the negative were made from a digitised B&W negative.</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>Having grown up in the film world, I somehow lost something in the digital process, I don't enjoy it as much and it became boring to me. My remedy has been to pick film back up, get my hands wet and spend time in a darkroom. It works, I enjoy photography more again in both film and digital. Photography is a process to me, not simply an end result, and I prefer to use some of the older tools at times. I'm the same way in other activities, I use the new but don't have to abandon the old. Keep using film, you'll add to your enjoyment of photography.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Some people think there is a look to b/w film, even when scanned that is a little different than digital, a finer range of tonality gradation. A year or so ago I probably thought that as well, but the files from digital cameras are now getting so nice and the conversion to b/w software so good, that I'm not so sure any more. One thing with film, you will be more or less locked in to the grain structure of the film, and though many like grain, including me, there's less flexibility. You will generally control grain by the type of film and developer you use and the manner you develop the film. New programs allow you to add decent looking grain. Don't forget that at the end of the day, a film scan file is a digital file as well and I haven't really found a way to reduce grain if I don't want it. Now if you were talking about medium format, I might have a different answer. I happen to have loved working in the dark room, developing (less so) than printing. Its a great process. But I find I do like working files on the computer as well, and as I don't really have easy access to a darkroom, digital has more or less become my process.<br>

I also would say, learning to develop film and printing in the dark room wet lab, is a great teacher of process in photography and will even help one, understand the digital tools the way they are used today.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>It is not necessarily all one or the other.</p>

<p>I still develop ordinary film in my little tanks, reels, and bag of darkness -- but then I scan the film and do the rest digitally. In my case, a small 3/4 bath is all it takes for the process.</p>

<p>As long as I can get half-way decent C41 locally, I continue to shoot color negative and do any decisions about whether to end up with color or b&w later. The exception is that I really, really have come to appreciate Ilford's XP-2 chromogenic B&W (C-41).</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Worth it? Only if you enjoy the process of working with film and the darkroom experience. The results aren't significantly different or better. I can hardly tell the difference between my own b&w film/darkroom prints and my digital b&w prints.</p>

<p>With film there's a slight difference in highlights and roll off, but in practical applications it's not often evident. And digicams are improving in dynamic range, along with highlight recovery from the better editing tools, so that gap is closing.</p>

<p>Even high ISO noise in most digicams made the past several years closely resembles film grain - that wasn't always true. My first Olympus P&S digicams had unpleasant luminance noise, even at ISO 200, that didn't resemble film grain at all. But my Nikon D2H at ISO 800-1600 has grain very reminiscent of Delta 3200. And my Ricoh GX100 - reviled when new for its noise even at ISO 100-200 - has luminance noise very reminiscent of pushed Tri-X. I was surprised at how good the 8x10 prints looked from that camera at ISO 800-1600, when converted to b&w.</p>

<p>But I still enjoy the darkroom experience. It's a relaxing meditative experience, with a satisfying palpable and tangible sensory vibe. I've never enjoyed digital editing. It's a chore, not an enjoyable or meditative experience.</p>

<p>Personally I get little or nothing from merely using film. Scanning b&w negatives for digital output - whether online JPEGs or prints - doesn't ring my bells. For me, the enjoyable part of the process was darkroom printing. I still do scan my b&w negatives, but I can't say I enjoy the process. I like the results, but not the process of getting to the results.</p>

<p>Some folks do enjoy simply working with film, even if they never make optical enlargements in the darkroom. That's fine too.</p>

[paul_hoyt]

<p>If I had unlimited funds, I would shoot film, develop film, scan the negatives, "fix" the imperfections that seem to be on some of my best shots, then print the electronic file through a digital enlarger. The digital enlarger is where the unlimited funds are needed.</p>

<p>Paul</p>

[vrankin]

<p>I worked with B&W film and wet processes from 1969-2003, then gave it up abruptly in a move to a different house. I later went over that work in 2012, thinning it out for a last move into retirement. I was quite taken by the quality of the (Agfa Portriga Rapid and Brovira) prints. My digitally produced wall prints are also good, but just different. They're missing the "tooth", as old printers used to call it. Maybe that could even be simulated digitally. I don't know.<br>

There is still a mystique in film shooting, and many absolutely stunning cameras now at reasonable prices, if you enjoy going that way. Sink developing and darkroom printing can also be very satisfying and rewarding. I'm quite happy with a quality compact digital camera and occasional wall prints. Going back to that former way would be too much effort and expense now. But it seems you're taken by it, and that's the key. Good luck!</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>If you enjoy shooting and processing film, then you have your answer. When I'm just shooting I use a digital camera. When I'm serious I shoot my RB67 Medium format film camera. I send my film out for processing. But I still enjoy fiddling with a mechanical camera, separate light meter and the contemplative process of taking the photo this camera affords me. Tmax 100 in Xtol.<br>

<img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3756/13219393413_161847b0fb_z.jpg" alt="" width="604" height="640" /></p>

<p> </p>

[dennis_oconnor6]

<p>Alan Klein. That photograph A+++.<br>

So it would appear from the many responses that there are only three possible advantages of scanning film negatives.<br>

1. You can view the image on screen (or decide if it is worth darkroom printing it).<br>

2. You can print without a darkroom.<br>

3. The ability to 'improve' the subject matter (digital dodging and burning. And the removal of unwanted objects).</p>

<p>Thank you for all your responses. I'm off to my darkroom now to have some fun.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>It is so much easier working with digital, a few clicks in photoshop and you are done. You can also save a ruined image much easier with digital. If you are going to develop B&W film I would say you might as well go all the way and get an enlarger.</p>

[charles_h2]

<p>If one started out shooting digital, I see no need to switch to film unless you just want to expand your options for creativity. There is a difference between the two, but it takes the best equipment and knowledge to show that difference. The better the lens, size of the negative, and scanner, the more you see the range of film, and it's unique quality. I also believe that because of the development of digital, there has been no new technology associated with film to produce a better product, whereas digital, is still in its development phase.</p>

<p>It is an expensive undertaking (best type of scanner and digital printer), if one is doing it themselves. It can also be expensive to have a lab do the work for you. This however is all relative to your income and the time you want to spend creating images. I like having a negative to print, and I don't mind the time it takes to produce those images, but digital sure gets you there faster........not better.</p>

[waldi_m]

<p>I think principle behind digital is to "flatten" images as values are always converted to 0 an1, similarly to music you lose some of the quality as there is compression and conversion (did some work on digital format programming and filtering), analog will produce a more balanced on macro scale image(shades), but not much different. One of the big differences you may see is if you are using medium format and quality /resolution will play major role. 120 film will provide around 80MP versus digital camera around 20MP+ (the latest cameras), so for large prints this will make difference. I shoot both, digital color, b&W film(medium format), I scan film initially to determine how I did it, and then wet printing afterwards. Darkroom is fun and rewarding, love the look of B&W photos from this process.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>I think I wouldn't go all the way to film+digitize+print, but often enough it seems the way to go.<br>

For some, it isn't worth the time to print them in the darkroom. Or print digital first, then decide?</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>I shoot both digital (color and B&W) and film, but use film mainly for B&W and do not often go the film plus scan route as I don't have the equipment for high quality scans. Also, there is not all that much tactical or stimulating and creative craft pleasure in film + scan.</p>

<p>We live at a time when many images are simply shared by computers, tablets or smartphones and there quality is not normally of high priority, given the resolution limitations of the receiving equipment. Where film is really useful in my opinion is where you go the full film route and print the images yourself in a darkroom. Whether the results are small 8 x 10 prints or those of 20 inches side length or greater, the quality of darkroom printing is a persuasive argument, as well as the craft pleasure.</p>

<p>So it really depends on what your objective is, internet exhibition of your work and occasional small prints, or large prints for gallery, home, or sharing with others. It also costs me much less to photograph and print, say 50 large size images per year, by film and darkroom, rather than film - scan - print where expensive scanning and printing (well above 1000$ in equipment, even if limited to 13 x 19 inch) is employed. Even sending out my B&W digital images for large print making is as costly as a full process darkroom route, often of lesser quality (tonality, paper texture), and only advantageous (if that is an advantage) in terms of time.</p>

[nozar_kishi]

<p>A digital picture taken with a digital camera, now, has the resolution of the camera with which it was taken, now. A film negative, always, produces the resolution of the scanner that is used to scan it, now or ten years later when resolution is ultra and supra. and beyond.<br>

next, a digital camera only has 5 to 7 zone sensitivity. film, with pre-exposure, etc., about 12, or even more.</p>