Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Who's still shooting film?  (Read 18090 times)
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1841


« Reply #60 on: December 11, 2012, 09:58:33 AM »
ReplyReply

In the past i developed BW and printed in BW and sometimes colour..

After that there was a period i scanned negatives- slides and prints.
The mayor problem with scanning colour was getting the colours right- it always was a mess and a struggle.
Never liked the flatbed scanner for film.. the only scanner i liked for film (slide) was the Imacon ( and drum but too expensive to do frequently)
of course negative film was never made to be scanned but to be printed. And those prints look very good indeed. I used slides for scanning

Nowadays my 'darkroom' is HP printer Z3100- i always like to control the whole process... It is very good for BW as well as colour and you can choose so many papers
It prints while i have a coffee ... and i can do colour-and the colours are right- this was almost impossible before. ( and the colours stay longer)

I would never go back to the darkroom but only for printing BW ( medium format or larger) on baryte paper. Very much like the results of a beautiful baryta print (- not the chemicals)
it is about the luster and the beautiful darktones ...

For me the digital image is now better than the film image;  it has much more depth: ( compare a d800 file with a scanned negative or slide and see there is so much more information in the shadows and highlights)
about 3 dimensionality- it has a lot to do how you process the digital image...
And the digital image is still developing fast and very young ...









Newer Kodak color films are designed to be scanned.  The emultions were designed for scanning as digital intermediaries for editing and eventually for digital projection, which is why, I believe, that Portra and Ektar look so great.  I photograph people, mainly, and only rarely have I ever run into serious color issues scanning.  It really depends on the software.  I use ColorNeg to invert my positive scan of a negative.  If that doesn't work I use Silverfast, which can be brilliant or maddening.
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2412



WWW
« Reply #61 on: December 11, 2012, 10:47:57 AM »
ReplyReply

TMARK,
I'm glad you brought up scanning color.  I've sort of avoided color film because of the difficulty getting color.  I had been using VueScan, and tried SilverFast but wasn't totally happy. I'll try colorneg -  but do you mean this http://www.colorneg.de/colorneg.html  or http://www.c-f-systems.com/Plug-ins.html ?
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
kmallick
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #62 on: December 11, 2012, 11:51:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Newer Kodak color films are designed to be scanned.  The emultions were designed for scanning as digital intermediaries for editing and eventually for digital projection, which is why, I believe, that Portra and Ektar look so great.  I photograph people, mainly, and only rarely have I ever run into serious color issues scanning.  It really depends on the software.  I use ColorNeg to invert my positive scan of a negative.  If that doesn't work I use Silverfast, which can be brilliant or maddening.

+1. This is the workflow that works best for me as well scanning C41 and E6 that I develop myself and scan on a flatbed.
Scanning raw in Vuescan and using Color perfect filter in Photoshop (http://www.c-f-systems.com/Plug-ins.html) make it quite straightforward.
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1841


« Reply #63 on: December 11, 2012, 12:33:07 PM »
ReplyReply

TMARK,
I'm glad you brought up scanning color.  I've sort of avoided color film because of the difficulty getting color.  I had been using VueScan, and tried SilverFast but wasn't totally happy. I'll try colorneg -  but do you mean this http://www.colorneg.de/colorneg.html  or http://www.c-f-systems.com/Plug-ins.html ?

ColorNeg.de.

The interface sucks, and is not all intutive, but after a while it comes together.

I have to say that Nikon Scan, and Flexcolor, could get color right on the first try 90% of the time.  Silverfast could hit it about 50% of the time, but was very easy to get wher eyou wanted the file, before Dilverfast would crash.

With vuescan I get a big flat file, with as much as the information in it as possible, scanning negs as positives, then work the file in PS with color neg and then fine tune with the usual tools. 

T

Logged
gotspeed
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« Reply #64 on: December 11, 2012, 03:38:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok, i admit it, i just shot a roll of  120 film  ilford panf 50 on the RZ... I didn't do so hot, it was overcast, i thought I overexposed it,  it came out very low contrast..  I hear it's a tricky film. I bought a couple rollls of panf+,  portra 160, tri-x and tmax 400 to check them out. So i am just getting into it.  

The bad side, i discovered nobody wants to develop it, high price of scanning. Surprised me a bit. I think I have two labs that will do it here locally. One is high end drum scan only. Other is more reasonable.  So then next decision is do I start developing and scanning it myself. Millers still does color 120. So portra can go there.

Shooting with the full RZ viewfinder outdoors and 65 f/4-la  was great (and so short just 10 exposures), unless i am imagining it, it has that large feel, (low angle shot of a family). Cient saw the work in progress, and commented on how tall their oldest son has gotten.  She only made that one comment specifically about size.  Is that a coincidence..  Wide view, with no wide angle distortions.

What about this bad boy..
http://plustek.com/mea/products/opticfilm-series/opticfilm-120/

Now that i finally have 2 or 3 digital systems I am looking at film, must be nuts Smiley
« Last Edit: December 11, 2012, 08:38:06 PM by gotspeed » Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 990


WWW
« Reply #65 on: December 11, 2012, 04:48:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Finally selling this December 20. Don't hold your breath. It's been delayed before.
Eduardo
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=OpticFilm+120&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=




What about this bad boy..
http://plustek.com/mea/products/opticfilm-series/opticfilm-120/

Now that i finally have 2 or 3 digital systems I am looking at film, must be nuts Smiley

Logged
Codger
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74


« Reply #66 on: December 11, 2012, 07:06:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I shoot 120 film (Fuji Provia 100F) and understand your questions about making something of the images you capture.  I elected to have my film processed at a great local lab.  I know they'll use the right chemistry every time -- fresh, untainted -- so I don't have to mix up expensive solutions for a couple of rolls and then have it go bad waiting weeks for the next batch.  I have them do the drum scans, too, and yes, each one is costly, but the key for me is, I exercise super critical evaluations before I hand a piece of film over to them.  Early on, I bought a good light box and better loupe, and I do a few steps before a scan order.  I go through all the strips and weed out 2/3 rds of the images instantly.  I put together a group of "really good" and a group of "maybe good" (or back-ups), and set them aside for a day or two.  When I return with more objective eyes, I work over each scene with two strengths of magnification, starting with whether it is a good composition and represents the subject positively.  Next, I assess the slide for technical elements: focus, motion, edges, etc., to determine if one of those factors should disqualify the shot.  The keepers that emerge are then sorted into "is it a pretty good shot" or "is this one I'll post on a strong forum or pursue for a juried show or contest."  Of this last group, I'll then rank them for preference/need to have a scan made.  All of this can take a week (no instant gratification here), but I've found it lets the deserving shots through, and the pretty good "tourist" shots end up on a side track.  Every 6-10 months I go through the tourist shots and throw most of them away, only keeping the very good alternate views of the best shots I've gotten scanned.  Insight: 120 size film for a 67 system is more than four times larger than a full-framed DSLR.  I have mine scanned at 400 mb.  I know I'll be able to take any of the files and produce a clean 40" print, and if I work with it some, a 60" print.  Don't underscan to save a few dollars.  An eight foot print hanging in a corporate office will underwrite quite a few scans in the future.  On a parallel line of thought: I've known a couple of guys who were quite accomplished with the techniques and workflow for digital capture, who figured as "simple" as film shooting was (shutter, aperture, right?) they would add the medium format "feather" to their bonnets.  Didn't work that way for them: there's different savvy and instincts at play and it takes a fair amount of conditioning and practice to previsualize and produce consistently good results with film.  MF film work can give you special images, but my advice is to hand off your film for lab processing, and then become very selective about WHY and WHAT you end up scanning, and don't stint on the quality.
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1841


« Reply #67 on: December 11, 2012, 09:57:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I shoot 120 film (Fuji Provia 100F) and understand your questions about making something of the images you capture.  I elected to have my film processed at a great local lab.  I know they'll use the right chemistry every time -- fresh, untainted -- so I don't have to mix up expensive solutions for a couple of rolls and then have it go bad waiting weeks for the next batch.  I have them do the drum scans, too, and yes, each one is costly, but the key for me is, I exercise super critical evaluations before I hand a piece of film over to them.  Early on, I bought a good light box and better loupe, and I do a few steps before a scan order.  I go through all the strips and weed out 2/3 rds of the images instantly.  I put together a group of "really good" and a group of "maybe good" (or back-ups), and set them aside for a day or two.  When I return with more objective eyes, I work over each scene with two strengths of magnification, starting with whether it is a good composition and represents the subject positively.  Next, I assess the slide for technical elements: focus, motion, edges, etc., to determine if one of those factors should disqualify the shot.  The keepers that emerge are then sorted into "is it a pretty good shot" or "is this one I'll post on a strong forum or pursue for a juried show or contest."  Of this last group, I'll then rank them for preference/need to have a scan made.  All of this can take a week (no instant gratification here), but I've found it lets the deserving shots through, and the pretty good "tourist" shots end up on a side track.  Every 6-10 months I go through the tourist shots and throw most of them away, only keeping the very good alternate views of the best shots I've gotten scanned.  Insight: 120 size film for a 67 system is more than four times larger than a full-framed DSLR.  I have mine scanned at 400 mb.  I know I'll be able to take any of the files and produce a clean 40" print, and if I work with it some, a 60" print.  Don't underscan to save a few dollars.  An eight foot print hanging in a corporate office will underwrite quite a few scans in the future.  On a parallel line of thought: I've known a couple of guys who were quite accomplished with the techniques and workflow for digital capture, who figured as "simple" as film shooting was (shutter, aperture, right?) they would add the medium format "feather" to their bonnets.  Didn't work that way for them: there's different savvy and instincts at play and it takes a fair amount of conditioning and practice to previsualize and produce consistently good results with film.  MF film work can give you special images, but my advice is to hand off your film for lab processing, and then become very selective about WHY and WHAT you end up scanning, and don't stint on the quality.

This is what I do, but I scan proofs on the Epson V750 and print them, use them as work prints before sending selects to the drum scanner. 

I agree 100% on the different mind set off MF film.  It takes a while to learn an emulsion, internalize what it will look like, what the light and lens will do. 
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7399


WWW
« Reply #68 on: December 12, 2012, 12:05:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have made a few 70x100cm (27x39.5") prints from scanned 67. I was scanning on a Dimage Scan Multi Pro at 3200 PPI. Drum scan offers a better image quality, and I'm pretty sure that excellent lens in front of Velvia 120 combined with excellent focusing and excellent processing can produce outstanding results.

On the other hand I am pretty sure I see a lot of lateral chromatic aberration from my Pentax 67 lenses.

Here are two scans from one of my favorite Velvia slides:

Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/VelviaScans/20111002-Velvia_to_hamburg_03_.jpg

http://www.high-end-scans.de/ (6096 PPI): http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/VelviaScans/20111010-Kaffehr01.jpg

My own scanner cannot handle the DMAX of the Velvia, the drum scan holds good shadow detail.

I will also post similar scans from Ektar 100, in a few days.

Best regards
Erik



I shoot 120 film (Fuji Provia 100F) and understand your questions about making something of the images you capture.  I elected to have my film processed at a great local lab.  I know they'll use the right chemistry every time -- fresh, untainted -- so I don't have to mix up expensive solutions for a couple of rolls and then have it go bad waiting weeks for the next batch.  I have them do the drum scans, too, and yes, each one is costly, but the key for me is, I exercise super critical evaluations before I hand a piece of film over to them.  Early on, I bought a good light box and better loupe, and I do a few steps before a scan order.  I go through all the strips and weed out 2/3 rds of the images instantly.  I put together a group of "really good" and a group of "maybe good" (or back-ups), and set them aside for a day or two.  When I return with more objective eyes, I work over each scene with two strengths of magnification, starting with whether it is a good composition and represents the subject positively.  Next, I assess the slide for technical elements: focus, motion, edges, etc., to determine if one of those factors should disqualify the shot.  The keepers that emerge are then sorted into "is it a pretty good shot" or "is this one I'll post on a strong forum or pursue for a juried show or contest."  Of this last group, I'll then rank them for preference/need to have a scan made.  All of this can take a week (no instant gratification here), but I've found it lets the deserving shots through, and the pretty good "tourist" shots end up on a side track.  Every 6-10 months I go through the tourist shots and throw most of them away, only keeping the very good alternate views of the best shots I've gotten scanned.  Insight: 120 size film for a 67 system is more than four times larger than a full-framed DSLR.  I have mine scanned at 400 mb.  I know I'll be able to take any of the files and produce a clean 40" print, and if I work with it some, a 60" print.  Don't underscan to save a few dollars.  An eight foot print hanging in a corporate office will underwrite quite a few scans in the future.  On a parallel line of thought: I've known a couple of guys who were quite accomplished with the techniques and workflow for digital capture, who figured as "simple" as film shooting was (shutter, aperture, right?) they would add the medium format "feather" to their bonnets.  Didn't work that way for them: there's different savvy and instincts at play and it takes a fair amount of conditioning and practice to previsualize and produce consistently good results with film.  MF film work can give you special images, but my advice is to hand off your film for lab processing, and then become very selective about WHY and WHAT you end up scanning, and don't stint on the quality.
Logged

Jason Denning
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228



WWW
« Reply #69 on: December 12, 2012, 05:24:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I shoot 617, because I shoot panoramics exclusively and you can't get the quality with digital in one shot as I do on film. It rocks!

Jason
Logged

www.jasondenning.co.uk


Fotoman 617 with Rodenstock 55mm, 90mm and 180mm lenses
Mamiya 645 Pro TL, and every lens mamiya made.
Sony A7 with 35mm and 55mm Primes
SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 463


WWW
« Reply #70 on: December 14, 2012, 02:14:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I always seem to like shooting film. It seems so simple sometimes and I get a lot of great response.

Kodak Portra 400, Mamiya 645AFDII...

Logged

Ian L. Sitren
SecondFocus
Cineski
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #71 on: December 17, 2012, 10:27:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I got back into film almost two years ago partly because digital burnt me out, and partly as a means to get away from the digital mess of photographers in today's market and the notion that the digital image is cheap (yes, this is unfortunately a perception in today's market).  I will say this:  I love film and it's that love that keeps me going because film is a pain in the butt to deal with  Grin.  Although now that I've honed my workflow, it's almost easier dealing with the film image than digital (except for dust  Angry Roll Eyes) and the results I get cannot be touched by digital.  I shoot Portra 400 in 120 and 135 which is the most amazing negative film ever in my opinion.  I scan on a Nikon 9000 with the Nikon software and I've dialed in results that are stunning.  Now when I go back and shoot a job on digital because the client doesn't want to spend the extra for film, I'm almost disgusted by the digital image.  They're just flat and lifeless compared to film.  Square vs. round.  Do I still shoot digital?  Of course, in low light situations digital is a wonderful tool.  So currently 70% of my work is shot on film.  I'd really like to get into 4x5 but my only dependence on labs are currently for processing, which is a wonderful and liberating thing to scanning your own film aside from the time spent.  I'd have to get an Imacon along with a 4x5 camera for my personal workflow.  Although with 4x5 I'd probably start developing myself.
Logged
Tejpor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #72 on: December 17, 2012, 10:45:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Which lens did you use at what aperture? I have yet to see CA this bad in my drum scans.

(I will also check some bright sunny shots too.)
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1841


« Reply #73 on: December 17, 2012, 10:48:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I got back into film almost two years ago partly because digital burnt me out, and partly as a means to get away from the digital mess of photographers in today's market and the notion that the digital image is cheap (yes, this is unfortunately a perception in today's market).  I will say this:  I love film and it's that love that keeps me going because film is a pain in the butt to deal with  Grin.  Although now that I've honed my workflow, it's almost easier dealing with the film image than digital (except for dust  Angry Roll Eyes) and the results I get cannot be touched by digital.  I shoot Portra 400 in 120 and 135 which is the most amazing negative film ever in my opinion.  I scan on a Nikon 9000 with the Nikon software and I've dialed in results that are stunning.  Now when I go back and shoot a job on digital because the client doesn't want to spend the extra for film, I'm almost disgusted by the digital image.  They're just flat and lifeless compared to film.  Square vs. round.  Do I still shoot digital?  Of course, in low light situations digital is a wonderful tool.  So currently 70% of my work is shot on film.  I'd really like to get into 4x5 but my only dependence on labs are currently for processing, which is a wonderful and liberating thing to scanning your own film aside from the time spent.  I'd have to get an Imacon along with a 4x5 camera for my personal workflow.  Although with 4x5 I'd probably start developing myself.

Yes.  On editorial jobs I always ried to shoot film.  The workflow was as fast as digital and I ended up with something I really liked.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2012, 10:51:48 AM by TMARK » Logged
petermfiore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 517



WWW
« Reply #74 on: December 17, 2012, 10:49:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Although with 4x5 I'd probably start developing myself.


Welcome to your next career.


Peter
Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1841


« Reply #75 on: December 17, 2012, 10:50:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Which lens did you use at what aperture? I have yet to see CA this bad in my drum scans.

(I will also check some bright sunny shots too.)

I've seen CA from scanners before.  Frankley I didn't notice it until you pointed it out.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7399


WWW
« Reply #76 on: December 17, 2012, 11:19:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Pentax 67 45/4 at f/11. Lateral chroma is independent of aperture. It can also be seen in both CCD and Drum scan, so I am pretty sure it is on film.

I'm pretty sure all my Pentax 67 lenses have lateral chromatic aberration, I have seen it on the 300/4, 45/4, 35/4. You wouldn't really see it in projection and not with a 15X loupe but you could "feel" it being there. It can be reduced with chromatic aberration tool in old LR3.

If it was my scans you were referring to.

Best regards
Erik


Which lens did you use at what aperture? I have yet to see CA this bad in my drum scans.

(I will also check some bright sunny shots too.)
« Last Edit: December 17, 2012, 12:49:20 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Cineski
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #77 on: December 17, 2012, 11:58:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, scanners are a weak link (as is processing) with film.  The problem with film is there's far more that impacts the image than the photographer.  To control this yourself takes a lot of extra work but like I stated before, it's liberating as an artist to control the digitizing of your film.  Even my Nikon 9000 can have occasional issues with edge bloom and film flatness but it's generally fast and 9/10 the results are amazing.  I'm definitely wanting to try out the Plustek 120, I've spoken to them and the answers to my questions were positive (including there's enough depth of field in the imaging machine to not have film flatness be an issue...HUGE!).  My only other option would be to get an Imacon which I may just do someday but not at the expense of my Nikon 9000.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7399


WWW
« Reply #78 on: December 17, 2012, 12:54:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

My experience is the contrary, spending hours on film scans but just a few minutes at most on digital. I guess it depends if you want the film look or not.

I sort of fell in love with digital as soon I had my first digital camera. Stopped shooting 120 film almost immediately.

Best regards
Erik

I got back into film almost two years ago partly because digital burnt me out, and partly as a means to get away from the digital mess of photographers in today's market and the notion that the digital image is cheap (yes, this is unfortunately a perception in today's market).  I will say this:  I love film and it's that love that keeps me going because film is a pain in the butt to deal with  Grin.  Although now that I've honed my workflow, it's almost easier dealing with the film image than digital (except for dust  Angry Roll Eyes) and the results I get cannot be touched by digital.  I shoot Portra 400 in 120 and 135 which is the most amazing negative film ever in my opinion.  I scan on a Nikon 9000 with the Nikon software and I've dialed in results that are stunning.  Now when I go back and shoot a job on digital because the client doesn't want to spend the extra for film, I'm almost disgusted by the digital image.  They're just flat and lifeless compared to film.  Square vs. round.  Do I still shoot digital?  Of course, in low light situations digital is a wonderful tool.  So currently 70% of my work is shot on film.  I'd really like to get into 4x5 but my only dependence on labs are currently for processing, which is a wonderful and liberating thing to scanning your own film aside from the time spent.  I'd have to get an Imacon along with a 4x5 camera for my personal workflow.  Although with 4x5 I'd probably start developing myself.
Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #79 on: December 18, 2012, 06:58:13 PM »
ReplyReply

8x10 film Schneider 480mm .... I just love it.

Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad