Feasability of hybrid film/digital workflow.

[atorger]

I'm actually not into LF... yet. But I'm considering moving there (to 4x5") for my landscape work to be able to work with the view camera, and because it is a cost effective way to get high resolution pictures. I'm not a film romantic though, although I do see a value in film I'd use a Phase One P65+ on a digital tech cam if I could afford it.

Thus my goal is to mess around as little as possible with film, but still get high image quality. The question is if that is possible, or if you simply must go "all in" and get your own dark room, develop yourself etc. If the way of the "lazy film photographer" yields poorer results than from a 35mm DSLR, than there's no reason for me to take the step.

Here's my idea of workflow:

I plan to shoot on reversal film, probably only Fuji Provia, and have a digital print workflow. It is nice to have good looking transparencies but I'd rather use a lower contrast more neutral film like Provia for the transparency rather than Velvia, although I might pull a bit in the saturation slider when post-processing the scan so the end result may look more like Velvia. Anyway, transparencies that I like enough to make it to a print will be drum scanned, at a professional drum scan service.

My guess/hope is that when the print workflow is digital rather than traditional analog, the quality and dynamic range of the drum scan is key and more important to the final result than custom details in film development, that is that a good drum scan can for example bring out post-processable shadow detail that in an analog workflow would have been to dark. In other words, while getting a 100% exact exposure and being a "master developer" may key when you do prints with traditional methods, there's some more slack now in the digital days.

To summarize, what I do myself is buying film sheets, loading in a changing bag/tent, shoot, send film holders to a professional lab, those that I want to print (something like 8 images a year) I send to a drum scan service, then I do dust spotting and post-processing to taste myself and make the print.

Does this hold true, or do you need to develop yourself if you want to make quality prints from film exposures?

[Frank Petronio]

As long as as anyone is selling film, you'll be able to find a lab to develop it for you. Most photographers send out their color film for processing, as it is more involved than B&W.

Check out one of the remaining pro labs, Edgar Praus at http://www.4photolab.com. People from all over the world send him film to develop, prints to make.

Bob Carnie in Toronto also has a full service, top quality lab: http://www.elevatordigital.ca (http://www.elevatordigital.ca/). There are numerous others, mostly in large cities and most do mail order business now. In the old days you could walk into a pro lab in any city and get your film done in an hour, sigh....

Color negative film (c41 process) like Kodak Portra 160 and 400 is going to be more forgiving, longer range, and for most purposes... better than chrome (E6 process) but there is no reason not to try both and learn this for yourself. Chromes are nice to look at but beyond that they have little practical value (I'll insert IMHO so I don't get clubbed by some E6 advocate).

By the way, offload the film into an empty 3-piece film box, tape it up, label it with your name, quantity, and type of film, and mail the box, not the holders. Don't put the film in tinfoil or anything "new and innovative" lol.

Eventually, perhaps in the next decade, "they" will stop making color materials. Most people are pretty confident that smaller operations will continue to make B&W film indefinitely, as there will still be a good customer base and it is more reasonable to make. But I wouldn't worry about loosing color too quickly, certainly a new $30K digital back will be depreciated and obsolete well before the last of the color film has been made. And then most people will still want B&W (which is worth trying as well).

Scanning your best film can be done by a top notch provider like Lenny Eiger at http://www.eigerphoto.com (http://www.eigerphoto.com/). Nowadays most people will at least proof their work by scanning with something like an Epson 700 or 750 flatbed with its transparency scanning unit. There are excellent smaller 13x19" pigment ink jets and of course your Photoshop workstation can be the same as you'd use for digital. Heck I even use Lightroom. The difference is that you can generate larger files, a drum scan can be a GB, a flatbed 500mb. (No reason not to downsize to more modest working sizes for learning though.)

This is the workflow that maybe half of us use. I have a B&W film processing darkroom but I will use the smaller Harrison Pup Tent to load 4x5 holders when traveling. I send my film to Edgar (actually he is local and a good friend) and print myself. I find the Epson scans sufficient for modest portfolio prints up to 13x19 on an Epson 3000 printer. If I were exhibiting larger I'd spring for drum scans. Scanning is an art and science unto itself but it's not that hard.

I'll say dive in with a modest outfit and don't be too critical over some of the details people here exaggerate on this forum. Keep it real simple, read a lot but take the advice with a grain of salt and feel free to ask dumb questions. Use the search function and read the root articles at http://www.largeformatphotography.info.

Everybody asks the same question, which you can find repeated... it goes like this: "I want to buy a 4x5 and get the best right from the start, what should I buy?" And the answer is it is impossible, if you are serious you pretty much have to experiment and try the different types to understand what you like and don't like. Please don't make me feel like I wasted my time helping you by doing the typical newbie bull$hit like spending $5000 on a new Ebony field camera and putting it on a $39 tripod or getting a Speed Graphic with an Aero-Ektar or a converted Polaroid with some fancy pants lens... although it's always nice for us to purchase them from you in a firesale next year when you give up, as those posers always do ;-p

Good Luck!

[Sevo]

Well, we don't know where you are from. The real question is whether you have local (or at least national) access to quality labs and scanning - if you don't, a hybrid workflow could prove expensive and time consuming.

[atorger]

Please don't make me feel like I wasted my time helping you by doing the typical newbie bull$hit like spending $5000 on a new Ebony field camera and putting it on a $39 tripod or getting a Speed Graphic with an Aero-Ektar or a converted Polaroid with some fancy pants lens... although it's always nice for us to purchase them from you in a firesale next year when you give up, as those posers always do ;-p


Haha :). No, actually I'm quite experienced with high res photography already through digital mosaic stitching with tele lenses, know all about gigabyte file sizes etc, and the need for precision in cameras and great stability in tripod and heads etc. The stitching process produces extremely high image quality and resolution if done right, but is not as pleasing as a photographic process or as flexible concerning composition as a view camera. I aim at pretty high end stuff on the 4x5" large format, I really want to get the best quality the format can deliver. The camera is as expensive as a digital tech cam, but there's a huge difference in cost of quality analog lenses vs digital especially at the wide end, and of course a couple of film holders are a bit cheaper than a 60+ megapixel back.... :). Still a starting system will be around $8K, so it is a big decision.

Thanks for the detailed reply. I'm in Sweden so I probably use Swedish services where applicable.

[atorger]

Well, we don't know where you are from. The real question is whether you have local (or at least national) access to quality labs and scanning - if you don't, a hybrid workflow could prove expensive and time consuming.

I'm aware of the high cost and time consuming. I'm in Sweden and I don't have local services, but I have national. With drum scanning and everything it will be about $120 per frame. But since only 4 - 8 pictures a year get that far it is manageable. Film plus development seems to be about $15 per frame meaning that I can make quite many transparencies which don't end up high end drum scanned.

The main worry/question I have is if I can expect predictable results from a good professional lab, or if you need to say adapt the development based on lighting conditions or other special things when the exposure was made so that when the pro lab develop without knowing what's in the picture I get random results. When I study LF photography here and there I sometimes get the sense that if you're not as good as Ansel Adams at developing your own film, results will suck plenty. I don't know if people are trying to scare beginners or if it is really true.

[Frank Petronio]

Both color processes - E6 (chrome) and C41 (neg) - are consistent and controlled, the professional labs run tests to check they are on target everyday. While you can adjust the development slightly to compensate for over or under exposure, this is rarely done anymore and most people think of color film development as a single, consistent process.

In B&W there are all kinds of adjustments and formulas for the photographer to use but color processing is either good or not good! It is standardized and both Kodak and Fuji use the same process.

In the old days, a professional shooting chromes (E6) might shoot a roll of portraits slightly underexposed by half a stop, then have the lab run a clip test - part of the roll - and see how the exposure looks. If they wanted it brighter then they could "push" the film up to a stop without significantly increasing the grain and contrast (with the later modern films). Pulling the film was less successful. Color negative has such a wide range that development adjustments are not worthwhile.

In other words, don't worry about it, it is simpler than you think.

As for the "best" then there is still a wide range of opinions and it depends on what your subjects and conditions are. But view cameras are just boxes, you can mount a state of the art, very expensive lens on a modest old Graphic or monorail and make the highest quality photos, as good as the most expensive cameras (boxes). Most of the refinements are to make the cameras more portable (as in field cameras) or more adjustable and rigid (as in monorails).

For instance, people like the Dusseldorf types (Struth, Gursky, etc.) might use a Linhof or Sinar with the latest Schneider or Rodenstock lenses. Others might opt for ultralight backpacking outfits for nature, others for handheld work, and a different system for architecture or studio work. There is more than just pretty wooden cameras ;-p

[atorger]

Both color processes - E6 (chrome) and C41 (neg) - are consistent and controlled, the professional labs run tests to check they are on target everyday. While you can adjust the development slightly to compensate for over or under exposure, this is rarely done anymore and most people think of color film development as a single, consistent process.


Thanks, I feel much more confident now. I think I can live with not adjusting exposure in the development (some services in here in Sweden provide that option though), I know it is harder to hit the right exposure so the transparency look good than it is in digital, but I'm prepared to fail and learn. Getting the right exposure I think is part of the fun, unlike messing with chemicals :)

I've also seen that some drum scanning services are good at pushing underexposed films if necessary, which I guess can be in terms of the digital file as good as pushing the film during development. The shadow and highlight recovery examples for example at http://cheapdrumscanning.com are quite convincing and I'm hoping that such a drum scan service can serve as the savior when critically needed.

[Preston]

The main worry/question I have is if I can expect predictable results from a good professional lab, or if you need to say adapt the development based on lighting conditions or other special things when the exposure was made so that when the pro lab develop without knowing what's in the picture I get random results.

A good 'Pro' lab should provide consistent results. Therefore, you should be able to predict how the transparency will look for different lighting/contrast situations. Since you plan to use color transparency film, the lab can push or pull development if they offer that service.

As Frank mentioned above, try different films and then settleon those that truly work you. Making a blind choice before doing any experimentation may not be cost effective in the long run. Personally, I have narrrowed my films to Astia 100F and Velvia 100. I choose which one to use based upon what I want in the final print.


When I study LF photography here and there I sometimes get the sense that if you're not as good as Ansel Adams at developing your own film, results will suck plenty. I don't know if people are trying to scare beginners or if it is really true.

I disagree. A good pro lab can deliver excellent results, but Do-It-Yourself developing has the potential for fine tuning the process that a lab likely cannot, or will not provide. You don't need to be as good as Saint Ansel, but it helps. :-) Seriously, It really depends upon how far you want to take the process: "If you want nice fresh oats, you have to pay a fair price. If you can be satisfied with oats that have already been through the horse; that comes a little cheaper."

I suppose there are those who have some inflated, elitist position about photography and do try to scare people off. I do not believe that is the case here at the LFPF, though. We're all in this together, and there is a sincere desire to be helpful.

I hope your experience is fun for you and that you get the results you want.

--P

[atorger]

I hope your experience is fun for you and that you get the results you want.


I know what will probably happen, start off saying "I'll never develop my own film". And then a year later end up doing it anyway :). But it is good to know that it is not mandatory to get high end results.

I'll surely experiment with different film types, but I think it is likely that I will end up with Fuji Provia, easy to come by around here, and I just love looking at slide film on the light table.

[Adrian Pybus]

I'm also in Sweden(Stockholm).
I have until recently scanned with an Epson V750 but have started getting selected negatives drum-scanned .
I have used both crimson.se and Team Framkallning for development and used Team Framkallning for drum scanning (crimson uses Imacon not drum scanning).
Who do you use?

Adrian

[buggz]

Wow!
GREAT information thread for a newbie like me, who like the OP is "wanting more" than my 5DMkII.
I too have successfully used pano stitches, which I will further experiment with.
I too, think that digital medium format systems are waaay overpriced. I will NEVER be able to afford a back that would be worthwhile.
I just purchased a 4x5 Sinar f2 kit, I am looking forward to it's use.
Soon, I plan to purchase an Epson V750-M scanner.
I don't mean to hijack the OP's thread, just wanted to add how relevant it is for to me, perhaps others as well.

[buggz]

Question:
- Anyone have experience w/ the Epson Expression 10000XL- Photo Scanner ?
- How much better, or is it? than the Epson Perfection V750-M Pro ?

[Frank Petronio]

It's best to ask new questions as a new question, that way this site becomes a reference for other users. And 99% of the questions have been asked before... so use the SEARCH.

But... the 750 is newer and aimed at photographers, the XL was aimed at graphic artists scanning larger documents. I do not have the specs but I think the 750 has higher quality and is currently the standard for this level of "prosumer" scanners. You'd also want to compare the sizes of the transparency bed.

[buggz]

Sorry...
And thanks for your answer!

[Frank Petronio]

Don't worry the threads usually devolve into chats and name-calling anyway.

[atorger]

I'm also in Sweden(Stockholm).
I have until recently scanned with an Epson V750 but have started getting selected negatives drum-scanned .
I have used both crimson.se and Team Framkallning for development and used Team Framkallning for drum scanning (crimson uses Imacon not drum scanning).
Who do you use?

I'm still in the "investigation phase", i e I have not started to invest in film systems yet (only have digital). I have not deep-dived into drum scanning options, but I have indeed located Crimson and team framkallning. I currently use Crimson to make large digital C-prints. I might send the film abroad for drum scanning though, I think scanning service I found here is a bit expensive, and I don't know how nerdy about quality they are. Tim Parkin's http://cheapdrumscanning.com/ seems like a really good alternative (he does care to make it "right"), but it seems like it runs it as a hobby or something so I don't know if he'd like to get stuff from abroad.

For medium format film (not my own, but from a photographer I know) I've got quite good quality with a macro lens and light table setup (color calibrated), using HDR and 1:1 magnification and thus stitching I get higher resolution (tested with resolution test slide) and better dynamic range than good table top film scanners, and much better than flatbeds. But it would be a pain to stitch a 4x5", unless reducing resolution.

[mortensen]

I'm not far away from you guys (copenhagen) and have been going down the route you're about to take... You should definitely try Tim's scanning service. I can rent an imacon very cheaply by the hour locally, but I must admit, that Tim's scans showed a different level of both detail, tone and texture. For your best shots, it's definitely worth it. He even provided me with jpeg server previews in order to determine my desired balance between detail and grain in the final scan. And this is still only 25 pounds a scan for 4000ppi!

For development, consider using HSL Digital in Düsseldorf. Gudmundur from this forum suggested it to me and I've been using them ever since. They're cheaper and - more importantly - better than my local lab. Negs come back with very little dust and immaculate packaging. Oh, and their service is endorsed and used by Candida Höfer and Axel Hütte ;)

Just a suggestion, but you should really consider using Portra instead of Provia. Unless you strictly shoot under light conditions, where Provia can handle the entire range, you are really loosing a lot of what LF can be (IMHO, of course). Take a look at Tim's excellent film comparison: http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/06/colour-film-comparison-pt-3/

good luck with it - I bet you're going to fall in love with LF like the rest of us :)

[atorger]

Thanks for the tips, and really interesting film comparison. It is a bit sad that color revarsal films does not perform as good as color negatives. Grown up on digital I don't really like to look at negatives, but I love looking at transparencies on the light table. Since I'm not going to scan everything I shoot, it would have been nice to have a "finished picture" in the archive to make it a more pleasing experince to browse. So I may just accept the worse performance and stick with reversal film anyway.

I'm not going to invest in LF tomorrow though, I usually have quite long "investigation phases" before I make the move :)

[mortensen]

I'm not going to invest in LF tomorrow though, I usually have quite long "investigation phases" before I make the move :)

... good idea. Although you probably already know it, there's some really good deals to be had on used gear. Apart from the ubiquitous Sinar and Toyo G gear, look out for the Toyo VX125, the Linhof Technikardan (S-model) and even Arca F-models. All can be had used from $1500-2500... check the prices on new ones on B&H...

[Zaitz]

Worse performance is a bit too broad I think. Certainly worse latitude for transparencies. But Provia has better reciprocity characteristics than color negative films by far. And many would say Velvia is unmatched in color. $8k would also get you one damn nice kit. I think that is a lot. Shit, an 8x10 camera plus 3 nice lenses can be had for half of that.

[atorger]

$8k would also get you one damn nice kit. I think that is a lot. Shit, an 8x10 camera plus 3 nice lenses can be had for half of that.

I'll keep an eye open on the second hand market. My calculations are based on new prices of fine equipment, Arca Swiss F-Line, Rodenstock lenses, and it adds up... Still a lot cheaper than MF digital, and about the same as high end 35mm digital. My motivation to make a move is to gain quality and to work with a view camera, the film aspect is just a necessary evil from my point of view and is what causes hesitation. Could I shoot with a digital back I'd made the move already, but MF digital which is significantly better than high end 35mm digital is out of reach in price for me.

[Marc B.]

Regarding the comparison of Epson V7XX series scanners vs Epson 10000XL.

Real world resolving of the V7XX scanners are in the 2200-2400 range, and the 10000XL is maybe at best around 1800, (IIRC).
I have no personal experience with the XL's, but I would also want to check with third party, scanning software companies,
(Vuescan/Silverfast, etc...), to ensure that they have drivers updated regularly for new desktops/laptops for the XL scanners.

There has always been timely updates from third party scanning software companies in support of the V7XX series,
running on both any newly released PC's and Mac's.
The better resolving stats(?) of the V7XX series scanners, (and available drivers),
made me prefer/choose the V7XX series over the 10000XL's.

New or used, it seems the XL's are about triple the cost of the V750's, and up-to four times the cost of V700's, (YMMV).
My thoughts on the matter...you may have other thoughts.

Marc

[Tobias Key]

If you get a top of the line view camera you can still fit a digital back to it later on so it's not that much of a risk, you could even look at hiring the back and using it with your own set when you feel that's what you need. Depending on how much you shoot in a day hiring a back may work out more cost effective in certain situations.

I certainly learned a lot from using a view camera so even if film went away tomorrow I and the camera stayed on the shelf I still would have got my money's worth from 18 months use.

[Frank Petronio]

It's hard to justify buying a new large format camera... they are simple mechanical devices, millions (well a million) have been made, and the higher quality models have usually been well cared for. Once you are on this forum for 30 days you can access the Buy and Sell section where you can exploit the broken dreams of some failed newbie who just couldn't hack it.

It is kind of a shame for the manufacturers but they made too good a product, it is very hard to wear out a large format camera out and they never become obsolescent. Just replace the bellows and lubricate the gears and you're good for another 20 years.

The digital back rationalization is a bit of a stretch, people like to think that and we can let them, but the requirements for focusing and making adjustments with a much smaller sensor "optimally" require a camera with finer controls, a shorter overall form, and digitally optimized lenses with less coverage. You could locate one of the 4x5 scanning backs I suppose.

[atorger]

I have investigated scanning backs actually, and got several offers ranging from $500 - $1500, but only equipment from the 1990s which often have mechanical issues and poor image quality and ancient cabling (SCSI) and need to be tethered to an ancient system. I've heard from those dealing with scanning backs that the interest has dropped drastically the last couple of years, so it may be tough for Betterlight et al to make it. We'll see.

A digital hack that could be working quite well is to get a 9 um 36x24mm 22 mpix MFDB such as P25+, will cost you $5000 if you are lucky, and stitch a 4x5" through back frame movements (really precise high quality camera needed with large movement capacity +/- 40mm), will take 9 frames, and if you train and get smooth at it you'd probably do it in 30-40 seconds which is on par or faster than a scanning back. You will get lens color cast issues, but it is correctable, and you'll need to stitch of course. The 9um pixels matches quite well what type of resolution you'd expect out of an analog 4x5" system, so there's no value in having a higher resolution back.

I think it is a bit unfortunate that the scanback solutions are fading away. Professionals don't need them any longer when MFDB is as good as it is. However I believe a scanback could be made at low cost (lower cost than MFDB, due to sensor) and aimed to 4x5" film enthusiasts that want a digital complement to their large format film camera. But that's probably not going to happen.

[tgtaylor]

Right now is the ideal time for working with a "hybrid film/digital workflow." Rodney Lough (http://www.rodneyloughjr.com/index.php?display=AboutTheArtist.html&session_id=24124G2FwAXVIT24Kv8Mf2kf.Q32FNr8ag2sqq1), for example, shoots wilderness landscapes with 8x10 cameras on transparency film and prints huge via lightjet. The transperancies are no doubt drum-scanned for output that large and the printers are no doubt expensive as well.

But if you're not printing big you really don't need expensive gear to do good work. For example here is an example shot with a Pentax 6x7 camera on lab processed Velvia 100F, scanned on an ancient Epson 3200 and printed (8.5x11) with an equally ancient Epson 2200:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7203/6860846313_a0dc07bcf2_b.jpg

Thomas