Film Scanners?

[Dare]

I'm thinking about getting a 35mm SLR cause I want to get into film photography too. But I don't want to mess with setting up a dark room. How do film scanner's work? Where can I get one? How much are they? Do you actualy have to send your film in and get negatives or can you develope the film yourself?

Thanks

[DavidW]

A film scanner scans developed film - either reversal film (slides / chromes) or negatives. You need to develop the film yourself or have it developed before you can scan it.

I don't understand why you want to get a film body when you seem to want digital results. If there's a reason that you want your pictures on film (such as slides for projection, a job where the client wants the results delivered on film or you taking a course that has to be done with film), or you want a cheap backup body so that you have something to continue shooting with at an event if your only digital body goes down, then they're justifications for shooting film.

However, if you don't have a background in using film already and don't need your results on film, I don't see the point of buying a film body - with the associated running costs and lack of instant feedback and instant pictures - when there's very little that can't be done in the digital darkroom these days. There are many things that digital excels at where film struggles - for example, with film, you can't change ISO mid roll.


Since I bought my 20D, I've almost saved the extra cost between that and a film SLR body by the number of frames of film that I've not had to buy and develop. For sure, I would have been more discerning about when I pressed the shutter button if each frame was costing me more than a tiny fraction of a penny, but I would have missed out on so much learning and experimentation if I was inhibited like that.


There are quite a few people that I have come to respect here who have extensive film backgrounds, and have all but given up with their wet darkrooms. More than one has put their enlarger and tanks in their attic - not feeling any great push to part with them as they're worth very little.

That's not saying film is dead - far from it. It has a place, but if you already have a digital SLR body, I'd ask yourself seriously why you're wanting a film body. In particular, one of your two Canon lenses (if I'm correct that there's a typo in your signature, and you have an 18-55mm) is EF-S mount, and therefore useless on a film body.



David

[UncleDoug]

I'm thinking about getting a 35mm SLR cause I want to get into film photography too. But I don't want to mess with setting up a dark room. How do film scanner's work? Where can I get one? How much are they? Do you actualy have to send your film in and get negatives or can you develope the film yourself?

Thanks

Glad to see someone still intersted in "getting into" film!
Yes, film will be expensive but you can have one heck of allot of fun. And you can do some things with film that are dificult to impossible with digital as it currently stands.

Look around for a pro-lab in your area for developing. On the west coast, we use New Lab out of San Francisco for developing.
You'll want to purchase a dedicated film scanner. I'm partial to the Nikon series of film scanners. Decent interface, versions for PC and Mac, and top-notch optics. If you have the cash, look into used drum scanners on e-bay. Check the major resellers on-line for pricing. Drum scanners are a bit more involved but can't be beat by any CCD based scanner.

[TeeJay]

I'm affraid I'm siding with the comments so far from this side of the pond, DavidW is spot on with what he says.

If you *really* want to get into film, then so be it, but with already admitting that you want the end result to be digital, I just can't see why you would want the hassle.

TJ

[Hellashot]

I recently got the Minotla Dualscan 4 for $220. 3200 dpi DR 4.8. Probably the best bang for the buck without paying double for 5400 dpi and same DR.

[UncleDoug]

I'm affraid I'm siding with the comments so far from this side of the pond, DavidW is spot on with what he says.

If you *really* want to get into film, then so be it, but with already admitting that you want the end result to be digital, I just can't see why you would want the hassle.

TJ

Why would someone want a '63 Ford Mustang?
They guzzle gas and the cars these days leave them in the dust....;)

[TeeJay]

So what you are saying then is that Dare (the Original Poster), wants a '63 Ford Mustang (nothing wrong with that) but wants to rip out the engine and fit a new concept, fuel efficient, electric motor in its place! (but only after restricting it's efficiency!!)

[UncleDoug]

So what you are saying then is that Dare (the Original Poster), wants a '63 Ford Mustang (nothing wrong with that) but wants to rip out the engine and fit a new concept, fuel efficient, electric motor in its place! (but only after restricting it's efficiency!!)

You said that not me.

What I was trying to provide is an analogy.
Some people like classic cars, (technology from a different time).
Are the cars of today "better" than those classics? Maybe, in someones mind's eye.
But why do some people cherrish classic cars and why do some go through all the trouble to get one to its original shinning shape? Should I tell them they are crazy since "what they realy want is just a car", and continue to discourage them from pursuing their goal?
Heck no!

So why should anyone tell Dare what he wants or that he is crazy.
I applaud Dare for going retro and encourage him to keep with a dwindeling art.

Film has allot to offer both in the rewards of snapping the "perfect" chrome to teaching you allot about photography.

Dare is trying to broaden his/her horizons, something that should never be shot down or discouraged.

[TeeJay]

I am really not trying to discourage him at all - just based on the original statement made - I couldn't see why someone would want to go that route.

Having said that, it is only my personal opinion, but that's what this forum is all about, isn't it, personal opions. As I said before, if Dare wants to go with film that's fine by me - after all, that's exactly what I was using; more years ago than I care to remeber.

My analogy pointed out (or tried to, but maybe I failed :-)) my inability to understand the reason for the mix of old and new.

Have fun :-)

TJ

[Dare]

Mainly I like night photography. My camera only goes to a 100 ISO. I'd like to be able to shoot some stuff at a 25-50 ISO. I figure it would be cheaper to setup a film scanner and a Film SLR then it would be to buy a 5D or better camera.

Why would someone want a '63 Ford Mustang?

63 Mustang? Thats a rare car indeed. Only one's produced in 63 was the prototype Mustang. 64 1/2 was the first actualy production of the Mustang.

[UncleDoug]

Mainly I like night photography. My camera only goes to a 100 ISO. I'd like to be able to shoot some stuff at a 25-50 ISO. I figure it would be cheaper to setup a film scanner and a Film SLR then it would be to buy a 5D or better camera.

For now none of the DSLR's can touch what film has the ability to do as far as time exposures go. So you are on the right track.

63 Mustang? Thats a rare car indeed. Only one's produced in 63 was the prototype Mustang. 64 1/2 was the first actualy production of the Mustang.

Yeah, yeah, you got me.:D Analogy still holds though.

[DavidW]

Mainly I like night photography. My camera only goes to a 100 ISO. I'd like to be able to shoot some stuff at a 25-50 ISO. I figure it would be cheaper to setup a film scanner and a Film SLR then it would be to buy a 5D or better camera.
That potentially sounds like a good reason to shoot some film, then. I was just questioning "why film" when you didn't appear to have given a reason. Having given your reason, I urge you to check up what slow films are available to you - many sub ISO 100 films have been discontinued as technology has allowed faster versions with similar grain size. For example, my understanding is that Fuji are no longer making Velvia 50, replacing it with a new Velvia 100 with similar grain size.

Consumers want high ISO film. Professionals probably care more about grain size than ISO - the same grain size in a higher ISO film means they need less light for the shot.

There are still quite a few ISO 100 reversal films to keep the smallest grain size. The slowest print films are ISO 100 and mainstream consumer print film tends to be ISO 200, though there's still some professional colour negative film in ISO 100 and ISO 160.


If it's very low grain, good enlargability and easy scanning that you want, medium format may be the right way ahead. Though I've never looked into it, 645 and 6x6 equipment that is no use for digital medium format may be affordable second hand. This is way outside my photographic expertise, though.


Returning to 35mm film, a quick look amongst UK suppliers digs up Fuji Velvia 50 (which is only what supplies are left in the distribution chain of the now discontinued ISO 50 variant - Velvia has very saturated colours), Kodak Kodachrome 64, and Fuji Fujichrome 64T (but that's a tungsten balanced film).

Kodachrome isn't E-6; I forget what the K process number is for modern Kodachrome, but it requires special Kodachrome processing which includes exposure to coloured light at a couple of stages - not that many labs run the process. The only Kodak owned Kodachrome lab left in Europe is the Lausanne (Switzerland) one, though there's probably still some third parties processing Kodachrome. Kodachrome reels in the UK are sold "process paid", but this isn't usually the case in the US. At the moment, it costs almost as much to pay the Lausanne lab to develop non-process paid Kodachrome 35mm film as it does to buy a process paid reel in the UK.

ISO 64 is two thirds of a stop slower than ISO 100.


In other words, my quick dig around didn't find any mainstream E-6 process daylight balanced film in less than ISO 100, other than whatever reels of the discontinued Velvia 50 remain to be sold. Kodachrome 25 was discontinued about five years ago, and was Kodachrome process rather than E-6 anyway. Efke are making ISO 25 and ISO 50 black and white film in Croatia to an old formula, but I don't suppose that's what you want.

I'm not sure what future Kodachrome may have - whilst it clearly has some kind of following, decline in usage may come to the point may come where Kodak decide that the marketplace is so small that continuing with production of film and the processing technology is no longer justified. I know all "talkie" Super 8 film has disappeared (environmental regulations precluded continuing manufacture of existing formulas, developing alternatives didn't make commercial sense), and Kodak are no longer making silent Super 8 Kodachrome, replacing it with an E-6 process Ektachrome product. Supposedly 16mm Kodachrome movie film is still available, though I have no idea about 35mm Kodachrome movie film, and whether it's possible to punch and load 35mm movie film into 135 cassettes.

Overall, the policy of the various companies seems to be that films for which there's still a commercial requirement will be made so long as there's no problem with the process from changing environmental rules, but 'speciality' products are disappearing over time as the overall film market contracts. I can't see colour negative film disappearing, especially with all the 'single use' cameras, and there's still a core market for reversal films and black and white negative films, but the number of products seems to be contracting.


The only other alternative for low ISO is to find a film that can be pull processed (the opposite of push processing - pull processing is where you overexpose a film, then deal with it in processing), and a lab that will co-operate (or DIY). If you pay a lab to pull process a film, expect to pay a small fortune for processing as pull processed film is likely to require a special run. Push processing was more common, but I expect a lot of the jobs that used to used push processed film are now shot on digital.


Why do you want low ISO? If your interest is in long exposures for artistic reasons, you could use a ND filter on your DSLR lenses, which is going to be much cheaper than using film. Don't forget the long exposure noise reduction custom function if the 350D offers it.

A TC-80N3 remote would give you the ability to have timed exposures longer than 30 seconds, but the 350D doesn't have an N3 remote socket, so you'll either have to find or make some kind of adapter, or cut the lead (which I would avoid if possible on such an expensive remote - as an alternative, buy a Canon N3 extension lead, cut off the socket end and wire it to the correct plug for the 350D, which is commercially available, then put the long remaining cable with an N3 plug on eBay, as someone is likely to want it).

A simpler and cheaper alternative is a wired remote with a locking shutter button, and a stopwatch - I'm only aware of the TC-80N3 because I have and use one with my DSLR.


Film scanners and film EOS bodies are available second hand at good prices, as many people offload film equipment that they're no longer using. Make sure you read up on reciprocity failure if you're going for long exposures.

Unless you only wish to use the 75-300mm lens, you'll need to acquire a shorter EF mount lens for use with a film body - your 18-55mm (I presume, as I said earlier in the thread, that 15-55mm is a typo) is presumably the EF-S mount kit lens, which is only of use on a limited number of 1.6x crop digital bodies.



David

[photodd]

DARE, in your first post you say you want to buy a 35mm film SLR, but in your second post say your camera can only go to 100 ISO. You either bought a film camera body really quick or I missed something...

[DavidW]

Some Canon DSLRs offer ISO 50. The 350D and 20D don't. I presumed that the "only go to ISO 100" comment meant that ISO 50 wasn't available - it was a reference to the lower ISO limit, not the higher one.



David

[UncleDoug]

David,

Have you ever tried "hypered" film for night photography?
Hypered meaning the film given a cryo-boost that is traditionally used for astrophotography(for those who never heard of the stuff:D ).
Never tried it myself. But the concept just poped into sparky, my one brain cell.

[DavidW]

It's not something I've used - my film background is quite limited, actually. Maybe it's of interest to Dare, though.

I don't have a film EOS body, and I can't see myself buying one unless I finish up taking a course that requires me to shoot film. Personally, I'm happy with my 20D and a Photoshop CS2 based digital darkroom. In time I'll probably acquire a second digital body by buying something to supersede or complement my 20D. It certainly won't be a 30D (I was planning to skip the next generation even before I learnt just how minimal an upgrade the 30D is over the 20D), and it may not be the generation after that. I'm happier putting what money I have into glass and possibly lighting.



David

[photodd]

Some Canon DSLRs offer ISO 50. The 350D and 20D don't. I presumed that the "only go to ISO 100" comment meant that ISO 50 wasn't available - it was a reference to the lower ISO limit, not the higher one.

Got it...and hence the reference to the 5D which goes to 50...

Which brings us all the way back to shooting at night and getting black instead of brown skies like I did using color neg film, or shooting slide film for nice blacks but blown highlights for lack of latitude; both of which can be corrected in PS after scanning. I guess I am agreeing with just shooting digitally with the 350 at 100. Maybe DARE could post an example of what he's trying to avoid going that route.

[UncleDoug]

Dare,

You may want to check this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=119958) out.