Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: confused with the want to scan everything  (Read 25660 times)
Scrooge
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« on: April 04, 2013, 05:20:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi all this is my very first post and I hope it is not too direct for a first post.

I registered as a post in this category fired me up to register.

First off I am pretty old school, I grew up with film, love film and not the biggest fan of what digital is doing to the profession. I think digital is great don't get me wrong and do own digital as well, but if it is for sale it is film. This is just my personal taste.

Now the reason to post in this forum. Now please excuse my total ignorance as that is probably what it is. Why does everyone (seems to me) want to scan everything? I don't develop myself did years ago but currently use a lab that will process how I want at a good price.

What I have read allot here is how do I scan my MF / LF etc . Why? I can understand the want to have a scan for uploading to a portfolio or Flickr or something similar, I can fully understand a drum scan for specific images for a large print.

But overall is the idea of shooting film not just for that to shoot develop and wet print? Sorry if this seems totally ignorant I don't mean to sound like a fool I am just lost with the want to scan everything, unless it is for a large format print.

I am actually about to start a new course as I have no idea at all about how to post process with PS or Lightroom or anything along those lines, and I want to keep up to date and not be totally out of the circle of where photography has gone.

I will hopefully always shoot film, well until MF digital is every bit as good as film and more importantly at a price I can justify. I do like the PhaseOne just my budget would not allow not to mention the processing power that would be needed to load toes images into a pc.

I would just be interested to know why it seems to me that everyone wants to take a perfectly good format and then turn it into a digital format seems a little redundant to me.

Cheers
Patrick
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2013, 04:25:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Most people that don't do something tend not to understand it.

The idea that scanning film is redundant is odd. If you are trying to get an image on a piece of paper, you need to transfer it somehow. Scanning is one way. Certainly, if you every worked in a color chemical darkroom, scanning and then processing digitally gives far more control. Even with black and white, you have far more control and more precise control over the image.

However, if you enjoy the chemical process, just keep doing it. There is nothing wrong with that.
Logged
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1463


WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2013, 05:25:40 PM »
ReplyReply

What the 645 guy said. After years of printing in a wet darkroom, I'm very happy to have put that behind me. I get far more control with the digital printing process, from both digital and film originals.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
David Sutton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 06, 2013, 05:10:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Add to that cost. In the past I could never afford to set up a darkroom for colour printing and nothing has changed. Not just the cost, but the space and time required.
I shoot MF film on antique cameras for fun, but for quality and convenience and the ability to realise in print what I have seen, my 5DII leaves it for dead.
Logged

theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2013, 11:59:38 AM »
ReplyReply

So Patrick, did you just join LuLa to make this one post?
Logged
DennisWilliams
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2013, 01:30:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I edit my film on a light box,  negs and E-6 positives, just as I have for decades, but  instead of wet printing in the darkroom I scan and finish those images as files, and email JPEGs to the client and mail or hand over the complete tiffs.

My client's don't use the middle step of darkroom enlargements any longer. Straight to file from me. I actually have more control than when they would scan my enlargements.

Also, the detail  in 67  to scan is such that  I have become a better photographer to insure I get everything out of the image I can. When I was printing double weight fibre enlargements on a cold head,  sharp and in focus in a 16 x 20 print  was a  very different looking image than the  sharp and in focus that can be had now scanning an original and viewing on a 27" monitor.  It is a different look, less dreamy and more analytical,  but it is working in today's market.
Logged
250swb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 214


« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2013, 04:37:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Using film for its characteristics and scanning it is the best of both worlds. There is far more subtle control possible in a scanned file than you could get from an enlarger, particularly with complicated dodging and burning, and then of course you have the freedom of easily disseminating your progeny on the interweb or to a printer.

But many people consider a photograph 'finished' if it remains as it comes straight out of a digital camera or direct from the film lab. If that is the final ambition it can hardly be called photography as it sidesteps any higher achievements that may be possible in the final rendition.

It would be good to hear back from the OP and find out if they learned anything or have other questions, otherwise this is just one of those threads that start and end based on a lobbed in hand grenade that ultimately just wastes people's time in replying.

Steve
Logged

joneil
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 145


This is what beer does to you....


« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2013, 03:20:09 PM »
ReplyReply

  for colour work and commercial work, I think scanning negatives is the way to go.  for B&W, my personal work, art for art's sake if you will, I prefer the wet darkroom.   My mind works better - something about getting away from the hum and the noise of being around a computer at work all day to begin with.

   I have seen some fantastic  B&W work off digital, but somehow it all looks to "perfect" to me.   There's a look to traditional B&W work I just like.    Not better, not worse, just different.   You have to find what works best for you and just go with it.
Logged
WalterEG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1157


« Reply #8 on: May 19, 2013, 03:49:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I have seen some fantastic  B&W work off digital, but somehow it all looks to "perfect" to me.   There's a look to traditional B&W work I just like.    Not better, not worse, just different.   You have to find what works best for you and just go with it.

My sentiments entirely Joneil,

In fact my comment for some time now is that digital is soporifically perfect.  I revere the aberration of the film image.

And to put my money where my mouth is. I shot two sheets of 4x5 T-Max 100 and a roll of Ilford FP4+ 120 this afternoon.  They'll all get a swim in the Diafine in the morning.

Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad