Is film practical for higher volume work?

[glenerrolrd]

As I move around I had encountered a number of Leica M photographers that have gone back to film. The story typically goes like this.....just liked the look for black and white so much better. Found a good lab that would develop ,create proofs or contact sheets and scanned images on a CD.

On the other side I see beautiful MP s for sale every other week .

The biggest issue for me would be the quality of the scans. It would take a lot to get me into doing my own scans . Then again I rarely want to work with more than 20-30 images out of a shoot of 1000.

 

[jonoslack]

As I move around I had encountered a number of Leica M photographers that have gone back to film. The story typically goes like this.....just liked the look for black and white so much better. Found a good lab that would develop ,create proofs or contact sheets and scanned images on a CD.

On the other side I see beautiful MP s for sale every other week .

The biggest issue for me would be the quality of the scans. It would take a lot to get me into doing my own scans . Then again I rarely want to work with more than 20-30 images out of a shoot of 1000.

Hi Glen
I thought not. Processing is doable, but high quality scans . . . not really, you can use an Imacon, but that's a whole other realm of expense. I found that the Nikon scanners were fine - but they're still digitising, it's immensely time consuming, and if you really want your digital images to look like film . . . . you can do it (at least to convince 90% of your viewers).

As an exercise I spent a month shooting only film, scanned on a Nikon 5000 scanner. It was interesting/exhilarating/boring/irritating/frustrating. I think I'm better of spending a little more time in post processing M8 images.

Of course, that's only me!

 

[Jack]

Roger:

I'd say a higher end dedicated 35mm film scanner like a Nikon 5000 or Minolta 5400ii ($800 ~ $1000) makes the experience pretty easy and the results can be excellent. I think with a perfect capture on fine grained film using the best glass, you can get more fine detail than say an M8 delivers, but the grain will show -- I call those two a mitigating trade-off.

However, there is just something special to the look of B&W film that is tough to replicate with digital. Plus there are a few color emulsions that give an interesting color palette -- almost pastel compared to digital -- and so I enjoy experimenting with the artistic rendering from those too.

The biggest PITA is not getting instant feedback...

Cheers,

 

[fotografz]

As I move around I had encountered a number of Leica M photographers that have gone back to film. The story typically goes like this.....just liked the look for black and white so much better. Found a good lab that would develop ,create proofs or contact sheets and scanned images on a CD.

On the other side I see beautiful MP s for sale every other week .

The biggest issue for me would be the quality of the scans. It would take a lot to get me into doing my own scans . Then again I rarely want to work with more than 20-30 images out of a shoot of 1000.

Film, either you're dedicated to it ... or not.

Scanning ... either ya love it ... or hate it.

I love to scan images ... there's a craft to it, and the results are so rewarding.

But of course, I'm scanning with an Imacon 949 ... I didn't like scanning so much before it came along :ROTFL:

35mm @ up to 8000 ppi with 4.9 true D-Max using a Rodenstock lens and the virtual drum to hold the film flat ... all in about 1.5 minutes. Batch capability ... get all the frames in the cue and go have a beer while the scanner does it's thing.

What's not to love?

Most lab scans are crap, :thumbdown: unless they're high res drum scans done by someone who actually cares.:thumbup:

Silverprints rule. Scanning silverprints on a flatbed really rules. Try it.

 

[Jack]

What's not to love?

The fact that particular scanner runs into 5 figures :ROTFL:

I'll add a minor addition: scanning silver prints on a flatbed while they're still *WET* rules -- squeegee them down and go! (IMO nothing ever looks better than a silver print before it dries down.)

 

[glenerrolrd]

I think by the above answers ..you are telling me that scans produced by film processor will only be good enough for proofs. This was my understanding..but I have been hearing more about getting development,contact sheet and scanned images on a CD as a package ..and that the quality is good enough for most applications. (not suggesting that you can make exhibition sized prints ).

 

[charlesphoto]

Well, when everybody else was buying their 1ds MkIIs I got myself a refurb Imacon 646 instead. Best buy of my career (a 949 would have been better).

I have a Konica Hexar AF coming and am excited to start shooting some film again. Scanning can be weary but it's also an art.

All depends on what you mean by high volume. I have one friend who only shoots film weddings (and is in demand). He has the lab process and scan everything and then tweaks them later. It's the same thing one would have to do to hi-res digital capture files - and maybe even less. It's just a matter of passing the buck on to the client. Or not. I have a child coming (hence the fast focus Hexar) and I want his memories recorded onto film. That I'm willing to pay for.

 

[nei1]

A few months ago I bought a mk1 minolta 5400 scanner in all honesty to entertain me while all the new digital models from photokina etc sorted themselves out into something buyable.However the scanner has been a revelation,the control and look of the final image way beyond what Ive acheived before,the best money Ive ever spent on photography.
My original intention was to scan through a lot of images,store them on there own hard drive and resell the scanner.However my experiences with it and the results it produces have increased its value to me to far more than its worth,it will not be sold.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Maybe I should have worded my original post differently. IMHO scanning doesnt cut it for "volume" anything. But I have heard this may not be the case with certain processing services.

What I stumbled on were a few posts on other forums and a discussion or two with photographers ....that indicated they were getting the film processed ,proof sheets or small prints and an original scan of every negative.

This would solve many of the problems with editing larger volumes of images. Typically I might shoot 1000 captures in a week as I enjoy street shooting . My goal is to get down to 15-20 for a collection on my website and sometimes a small portfolio of prints . No more than 5 will ever get printed large.

Obviously if I work backword I can scan or have scanned the top 5-10 ...expensive and difficult under any alternative. However the idea of scanning 30 rolls of tri X for a week seems too difficult and time consuming.

Its the cataloging and editing aspect that would kill me with scanning my own. So my interest is in the service offerings that do the initial develop, proof and scan on each roll.

 

[nei1]

Im not 100% sure but Id have thought that most cheap flatbed scanners would give you an enlargeable contact sheet.as for service providers Ive no idea Im afraid_______Neil.

 

[Jack]

Roger,

I look at film as an "artistic choice" alternative to direct digital, not a replacement. There is no argument that digital provides a superior workflow when managing lots of images. That said, I think the initial cheap CD film scans from the labs would be more than adequate for cataloging or even basic web purposes. However, if you want the best file for your portfolio, then a dedicated scan will be required. Since doing a few dozen scans for yourself on higher-end equipment or paying a good lab to do it is a relatively trivial exercise, I think the overall workflow could suit you for *some* of your imagery...

Cheers,

 

[fotografz]

Maybe I should have worded my original post differently. IMHO scanning doesnt cut it for "volume" anything. But I have heard this may not be the case with certain processing services.

What I stumbled on were a few posts on other forums and a discussion or two with photographers ....that indicated they were getting the film processed ,proof sheets or small prints and an original scan of every negative.

This would solve many of the problems with editing larger volumes of images. Typically I might shoot 1000 captures in a week as I enjoy street shooting . My goal is to get down to 15-20 for a collection on my website and sometimes a small portfolio of prints . No more than 5 will ever get printed large.

Obviously if I work backword I can scan or have scanned the top 5-10 ...expensive and difficult under any alternative. However the idea of scanning 30 rolls of tri X for a week seems too difficult and time consuming.

Its the cataloging and editing aspect that would kill me with scanning my own. So my interest is in the service offerings that do the initial develop, proof and scan on each roll.

I use AI lab in CA. I do a shoot of maybe 10 rolls, plop them in prepaid mailers for developing and proof sheets ... then just like when I did darkroom printing, scan only the select few. If I'm in a hurry (which is almost never when shooting film), I process the negs myself and make proof scans on an Epson flatbed.

It's just a more deliberate method of making images. The results are worth it IMO.

 

[Riccis]

Glen:

It was very nice seeing you again the other night at Dale's. Per our conversation, I am one of those that has gone back to film and, as you know, I am a wedding photographer and I shoot anywhere from 15-25 rolls per event (depending on the wedding).

I am very happy with the quality of the scans I receive from my lab. I think the best option for you is to find a lab to try out. I sent all my film to Richard Photo Lab (http://www.richardphotolab.com) in L.A. and I highly recommend them.

Hope this helps and let me know if you have additional questions.

Cheers,

 

[glenerrolrd]

Riccis It was our conversion that got me going down this path. I also saw something on Ken Rockwell blog that indicated he was using film and the processor scans as a starting point.

Jack

No way i am going all film . When I find a situation that is really worth the effort ...I dig in and shoot,review,return until I get it . In fact I am trying to force myself to go as slow as I can (not easy for me) ..and to take breaks where I review the images . Often I find a great opportunity missed and I can go back.

Maybe I just want some black and white proof sheets laying around my desk . LOL Roger

 

[Jan Brittenson]

I think by the above answers ..you are telling me that scans produced by film processor will only be good enough for proofs

Think of it as a stack of 4x6 prints cranked out by a minilab.

 

[Jeremy]

I have a Konica Hexar AF coming and am excited to start shooting some film again. .

What a great camera. I've been burning through the 50 rolls I ordered earlier this month.

 

[charlesphoto]

I'm currently going through thousands of rolls of film taken over a 30 year period for a new book project of mine. But I'm only picking out very few, and a lot of the work isn't even proofed. Get a good light table and learn to read negs and then scan and actually print those half dozen that actually mean anything.

Actually very few of mine will even get printed because once they are scanned on the Imacon with a bit of clean up in CS they'll go straight into Indesign (where I also design my portfolios). Once that reaches a workable stage then I'll start printing thru Indesign and then start sequencing (I find that easier by hand), probably just thumbnail size to start and then full size.

Once the final edit is made then I'll go back and carefully work the chosen images. And at that point maybe do some fine art prints.

Of course not everyone is doing a book, but it's good to get into the habit of doing projects. After return from a trip I'll do a few days of scanning (or more often now tweaking M8 files) and then make a 10-20 fine art prints (17X22).

I do find editing proofs to be a much easier and more humane practice.

 

[charlesphoto]

What a great camera. I've been burning through the 50 rolls I ordered earlier this month.

I can't wait. This is the camera I should have had years ago in my party days. Will be great for kids I hope. I may pick up two of them - would still be a lot less than a 35 summicron by itself.

 

[kevin]

But of course, I'm scanning with an Imacon 949 ... I didn't like scanning so much before it came along

For 35mm, does the Imacon produce results that are noticeably better than a good consumer scanner like the Minolta 5400 or Nikon Coolscan 5000, or is it just that it's faster?

 

[fotografz]

For 35mm, does the Imacon produce results that are noticeably better than a good consumer scanner like the Minolta 5400 or Nikon Coolscan 5000, or is it just that it's faster?

Noticeably better IMHO. I had a Minolta 5400 prior to the 949. I also had a Minolta MF Multiscan Pro which was very good ... until my dealer loaned me a demo Imacon 848 ... smart dealer

I sure wasn't in a hurry to spend the money, so I scanned the same negs on both Minolta scanners and then on the 848. Better shadow and highlight response. Crisper. No film flatness issues especially with MF. The 949 is even better than the 848 ... not only is it way faster, it provides a diffusion light source that provides the look similar to my old Leica darkroom enlarger.

Very expensive gear ... but it's either that or the same amount for a digital back ... and (for me) the B&W Prints won't look the same as with film no matter how many programs you run on the digital files.

(I'm scanning right now, got my packet of negs and contacts from AI today... 10 days door-to-door.:thumbup: )