Is film practical for higher volume work?

[kevin]

...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 finding that's true as well. Since I'm shooting only 35mm right now, I'll stick with the Nikon 5000, but the Imacon would be an easy choice if I start shooting larger film formats.

 

[fotografz]

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,

If I may ask, what's the turn-around time. I'm so sick of digital processing I could scream. It'd be great to at least offer a premium wedding approach using film again ...

 

[Riccis]

If I may ask, what's the turn-around time. I'm so sick of digital processing I could scream. It'd be great to at least offer a premium wedding approach using film again ...

Fotografz:

I overnight my film on Monday morning and it's usually back the following Friday, so their turnaround is approx 2 weeks, maybe 3 at the height of the season.

You should definitely give them a call. If you do, ask to speak with the owner (Brian Greenberg) and tell them you come recommended from me. He will take great care of you.

Please let me know if you have additional questions.

Best,

 

[kevin]

Riccis, do they provide traditional B&W in that turnaround time as well? Do they provide scans, or do you do that yourself?

 

[Riccis]

Kevin:

I shoot Fuji Neopan for all my B&W work and Fuji Pro (C-41) for the color. They do all the work (develop, print proofs and scan the rolls) and it's all done within 2 weeks in average. Again, I highly recommend Richard Photo Lab and wouldn't trust anyone else to handle my wedding work.

Cheers,

 

[Stuart Richardson]

I took the same route as Charles -- several years ago I bought a demo 646 instead of a full frame digital camera. Very expensive, but it is still just as useful today as it was then. The great thing about good scanners is they allow you a great deal of flexibility -- you can shoot any camera from 35mm to 4x5.

I will say that I used to use the Minolta Scan Multi Pro, and while I think the 646 is better, it is a tie in sheer resolution. The Imacon is much faster, has better color out of the box, better software, and better edge to edge sharpness. It does not scan mounted slides, which can be annoying if you have a lot of them (or want to keep shooting them).

As for it being practical for high volume work -- well, it was for the entire history of photography before digital. The key now is finding a good lab. There are still some out there. I think Charles is right here -- it is about discretion and reading your negatives -- you don't need to print all of them. Just the ones that are really worth it.

One good way to proof if you don't have a flatbed is to just use a digital camera to photograph the negatives on a lightbox. Just put them in a print-file sheet etc. Once you photograph them, invert them in photoshop, convert to black and white, and voila, digital contact sheet.

 

[edwinb]

I was tasked with scanning 1,000s of xray films a few years ago. the solution was a sinar xcatch which was a 60mm lens with a sinar cameraback in an overhead stand and backlighting. The crital quality control was to recover the range of detail from the darkest shadow to the edges of the burntout areas. The results were eventual ok after some tweeking of the profile and using a lens white reference. The resulting system was quicker, simpler and more portable than a scanner. From that experiance I would have thought that a cameraback would be viable in place of a scanner?
Edwin

 

[Stuart Richardson]

I have tried a 22mp back and the DMR -- both give very good results, more than enough for the web or small prints, but when you start talking about the real detail in a negative and the real dynamic range, all the scanners I have used have been way way ahead.

 

[fotografz]

I took the same route as Charles -- several years ago I bought a demo 646 instead of a full frame digital camera. Very expensive, but it is still just as useful today as it was then. The great thing about good scanners is they allow you a great deal of flexibility -- you can shoot any camera from 35mm to 4x5.

I will say that I used to use the Minolta Scan Multi Pro, and while I think the 646 is better, it is a tie in sheer resolution. The Imacon is much faster, has better color out of the box, better software, and better edge to edge sharpness. It does not scan mounted slides, which can be annoying if you have a lot of them (or want to keep shooting them).

As for it being practical for high volume work -- well, it was for the entire history of photography before digital. The key now is finding a good lab. There are still some out there. I think Charles is right here -- it is about discretion and reading your negatives -- you don't need to print all of them. Just the ones that are really worth it.

One good way to proof if you don't have a flatbed is to just use a digital camera to photograph the negatives on a lightbox. Just put them in a print-file sheet etc. Once you photograph them, invert them in photoshop, convert to black and white, and voila, digital contact sheet.

Stuart, if you're talking about 35mm, there's a Flextight holder for mounted slides. I have one. You set the receiving tray up to the 90º angle to use it. Very easy to pop in a slide, scan, pop it out and put in another.

-Marc

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Thanks Marc, but I am pretty certain that only works for the 848 and 949.

 

[fotografz]

Thanks Marc, but I am pretty certain that only works for the 848 and 949.

Yes, you are correct.