Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
Thread started 01 Oct 2010 (Friday) 12:44
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Kodak: "photogs going back to film"

 
NeutronBoy
Goldmember
2,049 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2007
Location: LI, NY
     
Oct 04, 2010 18:29 |  #31

Lowner wrote in post #11015324 (external link)
Explain the apparently essential scanner to me again. I must have missed something because I thought this was about film?

I admit I went to digital processing before I bought a digital camera, but if there is a resurgence (and good for them if there is) then lets see them do the lot, wet darkrooms and all.

People are shooting film, scanning the negatives into digital files and using PS for PP to print digitally. I don't get it ... a friend and I heard a woman describe this exact process she follows. Just buy the digital camera already!


5D Mark II, 40D, 350d
Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II L | Canon 100-400 IS L [COLOR=black]| Canon 24-70 L | Canon 100mm Macro f2.8 | Canon 50 f1.4| Canon 10-22 | Canon MP-E 65 | Rokinon 14mm f2.8 | Sigma 17 - 70 macro
MT-24 & 430 flashes | other junk

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
sjones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,232 posts
Likes: 200
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
     
Oct 04, 2010 19:54 |  #32

MG30D wrote in post #11033987 (external link)
^ True, I'm not dissing shooting film....just the notion that photogs are dropping digital for film. It's not some big movement, people always were using film...we're just noticing it more.

But your probably using a good scanner for B&Ws, right?

The nikon coolscan cost more then a 5D...& it's what most serious MF shooters use. That's what my point was...it's not a cheaper option really, just a different option. Flatbed scanners are not very sharp. My Slides are sharp, but on my flatbed scanner they're not as sharp as my dSLR pics at full size. For web viewing they're fine. So I would never consider my film as replacement to a 5D, without serious investment in scanning...before given images to a client.

There are guys to this day that shot film for weddings. But, they often do so because they like the look of film & don't like how the wedding photo industry has become about shooting 1000s of photos. They rather give their clients a handful of MF shots & some 35mm shots + Prints....but it is not about cost...the cost is pretty similar in the end. They just attract a niche of the market, that enjoys the look of film better.

Film is mostly only "cheaper" if not shot professionally.

Actually, using the Nikon Coolscan V ED, which was US$500 at the time of purchase. This is important, because I wanted a rangefinder. When I switched from digital to film, a full frame rangefinder wasn't even available, and while Leica now has the M9, it is more than US$7,000. Let's say in theory that the M9 would save me money in the longterm (it would take lots of rolls of film for that), it wouldn't matter, as I don't have the money up front for an M9.

Keep in mind, I'm an amateur, and as you noted, expenses for professionals are a whole different issue.

My point, just to reiterate, is that while wet print might look better than inkjet (whether the camera is film or digital), my experience was based on my comparison between the hundreds of digital monochrome conversions that I did and scanned negatives, whereby the negatives, even if somewhat crippled, still won out in terms of tonal depth and grain. Apparently, there are some folks who believe that a scanned negatives renders like a photograph taken from digital camera; they are mistaken.

Anyway, my original intent was to use my 350D in tandem with the rangefinder (using the 350D for the majority of shots for cost reasons), but once I saw the scanned output, the 350D was permanently retired (other reasons contributed to this as well). Also, I can exploit the advantages of Photoshop to manipulate the image (curves alone does wonders).

Plus, the intangibles; I just enjoyed the process of shooting with a film camera more, and I as I do street photography, I prefer not to use an SLR form factor.

Undoubtedly, film will remain a niche, but like vinyl records, it will experience its intermittent bumps in popularity, and as long as a market exists for Tri-X or a similar variant, that's what matters to me.

And perhaps one day, I might drag a few negatives into a darkroom.

NeutronBoy wrote in post #11033995 (external link)
People are shooting film, scanning the negatives into digital files and using PS for PP to print digitally. I don't get it ... a friend and I heard a woman describe this exact process she follows. Just buy the digital camera already!

Now, explain to me why I should get a digital camera already?


July 2018-July 2019 (external link)
It's the Photographer (external link) | God Loves Photoshop (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jetcode
Cream of the Crop
6,234 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2009
Location: West Marin
     
Oct 04, 2010 20:55 |  #33

Seriously wanting to run some film with my current rig and have my eye on Pan50 and Adox25 just to see what's possible and have some fun old school. I have a great high end scanner but have been completely lost the last several years in digital. I would love to shoot a portfolio of still life on a Hasselblad 500C.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Trey ­ T
Senior Member
Avatar
962 posts
Likes: 29
Joined May 2009
Location: Texas
     
Oct 05, 2010 12:56 |  #34

I am not endorsing it. Just bc the old skoo are stubborn and don't want to learn about computer, doesn't give them the right to dumb ppl down. I don't care how you think of it. that's the bottom line.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
krb
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,818 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Where southern efficiency and northern charm come together
     
Oct 05, 2010 13:11 |  #35

Trey T wrote in post #11038967 (external link)
I am not endorsing it. Just bc the old skoo are stubborn and don't want to learn about computer, doesn't give them the right to dumb ppl down. I don't care how you think of it. that's the bottom line.

:rolleyes:
The "bottom line" is that nobody who writes like that has any business throwing insults at others.

I love my 7D and all the things I can do on the computer using tools like Photoshop, Photomatix and PTAssembler but I use film whenever I can because I simply get more enjoyment from the experience.


-- Ken
Comment and critique is always appreciated!
Flickr (external link)
Gear list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
District_History_Fan
Goldmember
2,286 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2008
     
Oct 09, 2010 11:29 |  #36

NeutronBoy wrote in post #11033995 (external link)
People are shooting film, scanning the negatives into digital files and using PS for PP to print digitally. I don't get it ... a friend and I heard a woman describe this exact process she follows. Just buy the digital camera already!

I don't get it either. The only advantage I can see is that an awesome camera like the 1V can be had for a fraction of the cost of a pro digital setup.

I also wonder if the folks that constantly talk about B&W film have ever seen what Nik Software's Silver Efex Pro can do to a digital file. I am completely satisfied with my B&W digital prints.

For those that just enjoy shooting film, more power to them. They are doing it for fun, not because digital is lacking.


www.ericmcferrin.smugm​ug.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hpulley
Goldmember
4,390 posts
Joined Oct 2009
     
Oct 09, 2010 12:16 |  #37

District_History_Fan wrote in post #11063794 (external link)
I don't get it either. The only advantage I can see is that an awesome camera like the 1V can be had for a fraction of the cost of a pro digital setup.

I also wonder if the folks that constantly talk about B&W film have ever seen what Nik Software's Silver Efex Pro can do to a digital file. I am completely satisfied with my B&W digital prints.

For those that just enjoy shooting film, more power to them. They are doing it for fun, not because digital is lacking.

Actually you can get a 1D classic or even a 1D Mark II for less than the cost of a 1V in some cases so that is not true that you can get one for a fraction of the cost of a pro digital setup. A 3 or 1N is cheaper while the original EOS 1 is dirt cheap.

As for comparisons between software emulation of B&W and real B&W, I ask have you done it yourself? Have you shot with two EOS cameras, one film and one digital? If not then I wish you wouldn't say that they are the same. I shoot both side by side and they are different mediums in my opinion, not better or worse but different.

Personally, the people who say "they're just scanning their film, why don't they just go digital already?" should ask themselves why they're using "Silver FX" software to make their B&W look like film. It's digital, it's apparently 100% better so why are you trying to make it look like film???


flickr (external link) 1DIIN 40D 1NRS 650 1.4xII EF12II Pel8 50f1.8I 28-80II 17-40L 24-70L 100-400L 177A 199A OC-E3 RS-80N3

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,903 posts
Likes: 204
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
     
Oct 09, 2010 14:04 |  #38

District_History_Fan wrote in post #11063794 (external link)
I don't get it either. The only advantage I can see is that an awesome camera like the 1V can be had for a fraction of the cost of a pro digital setup.

I mostly use medium format for my film work. I recently picked up a Rolleiflex SLX 6x6cm with an 80mm Zeiss Planar f/2.8 and 120/220 cartridge for less than $500. I also have a Bronica GS-1 6x7cm SLR with 4 lenses, 3 backs, AE Prism Finder, extension tube and Speed Grip. The virtues of medium format (e.g., bokeh) are what makes it attractive. I also scored a Canon EOS A2e with eye-control focus (which is completely cool; I don't know why Canon doesn't put it on their digital cameras as it's a fabulous feature) for only $60. I'll be shooting my last 4 rolls of Kodachrome in the next few months.

I also wonder if the folks that constantly talk about B&W film have ever seen what Nik Software's Silver Efex Pro can do to a digital file. I am completely satisfied with my B&W digital prints.

I use SEP and it's a fine package. However, you're limited to specified films and there are no provisions for emulating different developers or exposures of the film, which is what B&W is really about. For instance, there is no SEP preset for overerexposing Acros to improve its dynamic range (which is several stops more than the best ff digital sensors), nor can I select XTOL as the developer and use it for underdevelopment of the film to improve accutance while maintaining nice midtones. You can certainly eye-ball it, but that defeats the purpose of having those nice presets. SEP is very limited in this regard - there are lots of developers, lots of films, and lots of exposure and development permutations that you simply cannot have as presets in a software program.

For those that just enjoy shooting film, more power to them. They are doing it for fun, not because digital is lacking.

There are some advantages of film over digital. My 5Dii has about 10 stops of effective dynamic range in real-world shooting. Ektar gets you about 12 stops and Portra and Fuji Pro 160 films get you about 14 stops. But it is much more of a hassle to deal with film, and scanning takes a bit of time for a hybrid work-flow. But this is why I do both digital and analog photography.


"Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
District_History_Fan
Goldmember
2,286 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2008
     
Oct 09, 2010 19:13 |  #39

hpulley wrote in post #11064000 (external link)
As for comparisons between software emulation of B&W and real B&W, I ask have you done it yourself? Have you shot with two EOS cameras, one film and one digital? If not then I wish you wouldn't say that they are the same. I shoot both side by side and they are different mediums in my opinion, not better or worse but different.

I am comparing current digital B&W prints to professional B&W prints from years past.


www.ericmcferrin.smugm​ug.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
District_History_Fan
Goldmember
2,286 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2008
     
Oct 09, 2010 19:15 |  #40

Tony-S wrote in post #11064453 (external link)
I mostly use medium format for my film work. I recently picked up a Rolleiflex SLX 6x6cm with an 80mm Zeiss Planar f/2.8 and 120/220 cartridge for less than $500. I also have a Bronica GS-1 6x7cm SLR with 4 lenses, 3 backs, AE Prism Finder, extension tube and Speed Grip. The virtues of medium format (e.g., bokeh) are what makes it attractive. I also scored a Canon EOS A2e with eye-control focus (which is completely cool; I don't know why Canon doesn't put it on their digital cameras as it's a fabulous feature) for only $60. I'll be shooting my last 4 rolls of Kodachrome in the next few months.

I use SEP and it's a fine package. However, you're limited to specified films and there are no provisions for emulating different developers or exposures of the film, which is what B&W is really about. For instance, there is no SEP preset for overerexposing Acros to improve its dynamic range (which is several stops more than the best ff digital sensors), nor can I select XTOL as the developer and use it for underdevelopment of the film to improve accutance while maintaining nice midtones. You can certainly eye-ball it, but that defeats the purpose of having those nice presets. SEP is very limited in this regard - there are lots of developers, lots of films, and lots of exposure and development permutations that you simply cannot have as presets in a software program.

There are some advantages of film over digital. My 5Dii has about 10 stops of effective dynamic range in real-world shooting. Ektar gets you about 12 stops and Portra and Fuji Pro 160 films get you about 14 stops. But it is much more of a hassle to deal with film, and scanning takes a bit of time for a hybrid work-flow. But this is why I do both digital and analog photography.

Good points. I was mostly talking 35mm film, but can see where medium format film could be very cool to play with.

BTW, I see you are from Ft Collins. I used to ride a cool little motocross track at Horsetooth reservoir back in the mid 80s. Those were fun times and good memories.


www.ericmcferrin.smugm​ug.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hpulley
Goldmember
4,390 posts
Joined Oct 2009
     
Oct 09, 2010 21:24 |  #41

District_History_Fan wrote in post #11065568 (external link)
I am comparing current digital B&W prints to professional B&W prints from years past.

Sorry but that's not a direct comparison at all. I still don't know why you even want to emulate silver process if digital is completely better anyways.


flickr (external link) 1DIIN 40D 1NRS 650 1.4xII EF12II Pel8 50f1.8I 28-80II 17-40L 24-70L 100-400L 177A 199A OC-E3 RS-80N3

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
District_History_Fan
Goldmember
2,286 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2008
     
Oct 09, 2010 21:55 |  #42

hpulley wrote in post #11066043 (external link)
Sorry but that's not a direct comparison at all. I still don't know why you even want to emulate silver process if digital is completely better anyways.

There's an easy fix for this. You can shoot film and I can shoot digital. Everyone wins. :) I have nothing against film, its just that I don't see digital as anything but an advancement. Either way, we can shoot what we want so its really a moot point I guess.


www.ericmcferrin.smugm​ug.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MOkoFOko
nut impotent and avoiding Geoff
Avatar
19,889 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Michigan
     
Oct 09, 2010 22:23 |  #43

I hated film :) having my rolls developed at Meijer and KMart probably contributed to that... I was so happy when I got my first P&S Nikon Coolpix 950 :) I was so sad when I left it sitting on a bench in England :(


My Gearlist

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
J_TULLAR
Goldmember
Avatar
3,011 posts
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
     
Oct 09, 2010 23:35 |  #44

District_History_Fan wrote in post #11063794 (external link)
I don't get it either. The only advantage I can see is that an awesome camera like the 1V can be had for a fraction of the cost of a pro digital setup.

I also wonder if the folks that constantly talk about B&W film have ever seen what Nik Software's Silver Efex Pro can do to a digital file. I am completely satisfied with my B&W digital prints.

For those that just enjoy shooting film, more power to them. They are doing it for fun, not because digital is lacking.

I have nik silver efex pro, and its great and all but not the same.


Model Mayhem (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Deepanshu
Hatchling
4 posts
Joined Oct 2010
     
Oct 10, 2010 01:25 |  #45

i love my f5. but i wouldn't go through all that trouble. and don't negative scanners create artifact?


Free Themes (external link)
Free ebooks (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17,990 views & 0 likes for this thread
Kodak: "photogs going back to film"
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is frankn
783 guests, 297 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.