Why use color film?

[Robert Hughes]

I understand why LF photographers use B&W film - the ability to home process with simple tools, the ability to manipulate the image, etc.

But why bother with color film? The development process is complex, exacting and not amenable to image manipulation. Any image enhancements seem much more readily accomplished in Photoshop, which means you've moved into the digital realm already.

It seems that digital capture, processing and printing has so much going for it that color film is literally obsolete. But it's not - people are still using it.

To quote my dad: Not "no", but "why"?

[domaz]

You are forgetting one of the chief advantages of Large Format in the first place: Image Quality. Digital has not surpassed Large Format in image quality definitively, not even in 4x5 (unless you get into stitching but please let's not). So if you want a color photography of something and you want quality Large Format is a very valid choice.

[Sevo]

There is not that much digital LF capture around which you can comfortably use on a landscape. While I own a scan back for studio use, carrying that beast, a laptop, car battery and inverter to a scenic sight is not my notion of fun.

[Walter Calahan]

I haven't seen a digital back to match an 8x10 chrome or negative.

[lecarp]

Have you ever seen a well done 8x10 transparency? It will answer your question.

[Greg Blank]

Hey Robert;

I've been doing color printing for 20 years or more, once one gets the basics down it's faster than computer work if your negative is clean and unblemished.
Also there is the dollars factor. If you buy bulk chemicals, the total price of a 16 x20 is a few dollars. Since I bought my color head and processor years ago those cost were absorbed into my business and paid for through print sales. I have made prints up to 13x19 on the ink jet but I seem to feel the negatives to color paper edge them abit.
I have a digital color analyzer "color star" As well as a Data color Spyder, both sytems stream line print making.

I understand why LF photographers use B&W film - the ability to home process with simple tools, the ability to manipulate the image, etc.

But why bother with color film? The development process is complex, exacting and not amenable to image manipulation. Any image enhancements seem much more readily accomplished in Photoshop, which means you've moved into the digital realm already.

It seems that digital capture, processing and printing has so much going for it that color film is literally obsolete. But it's not - people are still using it.

To quote my dad: Not "no", but "why"?

[Drew Wiley]

Ever look at a well-made Cibachrome or dye transfer print from large format real film?
No contest. Well, these do tend to be expensive and time-consuming processes. So
lets looks at an ordinary C-print on something like Crystal Archive paper. Last time I
calculated it, there was something like a twenty to one cost ratio between direct
enlargement from a color negative versus scanning and Lightjet. That's right, twenty
to one! And you get a sharper print the old-fashioned way. Well, you could adjust that
cost factor if you own an actual scanner and Lighjet or Chromira machine, but how
much does that cost? So then you go inkjet. Ever add up the cost of the paper and
replacement inks for large prints? And whether you like the look or not, it isn't equivalent to a direct print. It's different.

[Greg Blank]

Sooo Correct you are. There was an article in Great Output magazine a few years back stating that the R&D cost for printers would make them unaffordable if ink sales were not so outrageously priced. At the pro-sumer level ink cost more than Dom Perignon Per ounce ink is the most expensive stff you will ever buy, if you buy the manufacturers ink.

Ever look at a well-made Cibachrome or dye transfer print from large format real film?
No contest. Well, these do tend to be expensive and time-consuming processes. So
lets looks at an ordinary C-print on something like Crystal Archive paper. Last time I
calculated it, there was something like a twenty to one cost ratio between direct
enlargement from a color negative versus scanning and Lightjet. That's right, twenty
to one! And you get a sharper print the old-fashioned way. Well, you could adjust that
cost factor if you own an actual scanner and Lighjet or Chromira machine, but how
much does that cost? So then you go inkjet. Ever add up the cost of the paper and
replacement inks for large prints? And whether you like the look or not, it isn't equivalent to a direct print. It's different.

[Jim Becia]

So then you go inkjet. Ever add up the cost of the paper and replacement inks for large prints? And whether you like the look or not, it isn't equivalent to a direct print. It's different.

Drew,

Your disdain for inkjets prints is well known. But, I'll just address the numbers for inkjet printing. I have crunched the numbers on my inkjet printing with my Epson 9600 for years, and despite what you hear about costs, it is very reasonable when using the wide format printers with the 220ml cartridges.

Let's just start with ink costs. My printer uses 1 ml to print an 8x10. That's $.40 for the ink. My paper runs no more than $.50 however, let's double the ink cost just to be on the safe side so that ink costs me $.80 plus paper comes out to $1.30 fon an 8x10. Not too bad. Now obviously there is the cost of the printer. In MY case, I have had my printer for 7 years and it cost me about $4500 so that is $650 per year in cost, add another $100 per year in servicing and I'm up to $5200 for the 7 years or $750 per year. Over the years, I hve gone through almost 12000 feet of paper. So that averages out to about 1700 feet per year. Now this ranges from small prints (8x10) up to 30x80 images. But lets just say that I print in the neighborhood of 600 prints a year. My cost per print then adds another $1.50 per print regardless of size. This will "skew" the smaller print cost up to about $2.80. But if I use the same figures for a 24x30 image, my ink costs are $14.40 (using $.80 per 80 square inches) and currently my paper costs about $5. So if I add up everything $1.50+$14.40+$5 I come up with about $21 for a 24x30. I don't find these numbers excessive or expensive.

I have the convenience of working whenever I choose without having to have a dedicated darkroom. A cost that can be considerable. Now, I realize that there some other factor involved here in terms of scans, but again, a small cost in scheme of things.

I realize that some day my printer will die and will have to be replace, but in the scheme of things, I find it extremely reasonable for what I do. My printer has paid for itself so many times over. And as long as it continues to print, my costs keep going down.

Now, to answer the question of why use film, I personally like the look of film and like some previous posters have mentioned, the results from large film is what attracted me in the first place. Stitching with a dslr at this time, is just not my cup of tea. IMHO (for me), nothing beats the response I get when I look at a large piece of film on a light table. (I think Drew will even agree with this.)

I hope to continue using film as long as I can. I'm not a spring chicken anymore (58) but will still haul 40 to 50 pounds of large format equipment all day if needed. I just can't give film up yet. Jim Becia

[Chris Strobel]

But why bother with color film?

Because I don't have $42,000.00 for a P65+