Why use color film?

[jp]

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"?

I've processed and printed color as well as B&W. I like B&W. I didn't so much care for color. Color prints I put them in a temp controlled light tight drum instead of watching the magic under a safelight in a tray.

I'm pretty decent with computers, so I decided I'd rather just nudge that slider in photoshop to fix a color cast than make a reprint in the darkroom after studying the print with a whole variety of subtle filters.

I could really see scanning color film for digital output. That's a resonable combination in my mind.

I'll leave it to the others who appreciate it to do the fully analog color workflow.

I've had people make nice cibachromes for me in the past. I've seen other people's really nice dye transfer stuff. They are real nice. I just don't like the process, and photography is something I do because I like doing it.

[Chris Strobel]

I've never actually shot color film in my 8x10, but do have 10 sheets of Velvia, and 10 sheets of Provia that have been in the fridge 2 years now.I have been experimenting with my 15mp dslr trying to make color images with full depth of field that have a resolution roughly equal to what scanning one of my 8x10 chromes would yield should I get brave enough to load em up..The example below took two hours to shoot making 10 exposures at slightly different focus points for each of the 30 frames shot for the final composite.Pauses because the sun would come out from behind a cloud for a bit turned it into a very long process.Then once back home it took the good part of a whole day to focus blend each image and then compile them in 16 bit with Autopano Giga to finally get a basic image.I haven't even begun to try and color correct or adjust curves, and probably won't because I'm already burnt out just getting to this point.

With film in the 8x10 I could have had the camera set up in under 5 min., spent maybe another 5 min. adjusting the front standard for plane of focus, metered and exposed the film and been outta there.Irvine Pro Photo 15min. from me does 8x10 E6.I could have dropped the film off, picked it up 2 hours latter, and scanned it on my 4990 way before the 16bit digital image was even done rendering.Which process is more complex and exacting?In my experience so far its been the digital process thats been a pita trying to get a file size that equals my scanned 8x10's (all b&w up to this point)

[JRFrench]

Developing c41 colour film really isn't all that stressful, apart from the 30 mins wait or so for my chems to come up to temp, its actually easier than BnW for me. Its quicker and I don't have to take the negs out of the tube to fix as there is no anti halation on the back to worry about not removing.

[CarstenW]

Do you use a Jobo tube, and how do you handle the temperature of the chemicals?

[JRFrench]

I use a home made tube, its a 2 reel daylight 35mm processing tank with some nubs glued on the inside to keep the 2 sheets at a time in place.

As for the chems I use a water bath of about 4 gallons, I start with it at about 42deg c to help the chems warm up, when the dev is at 38.5 degrees C I pour it in, 3.15 of spinning the tank in the water bath later I pour it out, and I've measured it at 37.5deg on the way out, giving an average of 38 deg. The temp, and time, are not as crucial as people, and datasheets, make it out to be. The c41 scanning and/or printing process has a lot of latitude for colour shifts in it. The only way I have stuffed negs is by splashing dev down the dump ports on the tank, so it dribbled down the neg while the tank was filling in from the bottom, so those strips got extra development, and show up on the negative. I solved that problem by being more careful, and decanting the dev into a vessel first that makes it easier to pour quickly.

[Bruce Watson]

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.

Obsolete? ROFLMAO!

It costs me about $5/sheet USD for processed C-41. A P65+ medium format digital back costs about $42000 USD. That's the equivalent of 8400 processed sheets. In a good year I shoot maybe 100 sheets of color film. That's an 84 year pay back on my investment. Perhaps not the wisest use of money.

Then you can look at weight. That same P65+ back and it's power packs, cables, and monitor computer weigh a lot more than 10 loaded film holders. If you are going to put it all on your back and hike up the mountain, weight matters. A lot. Using digital capture would effectively rule out some locations for me, making it utterly worthless.

So digital capture is a looser right from the start, for me anyway. I'm not even going to talk about image quality -- no doubt others will deal with that on this thread.

Digital capture as a replacement for LF is still a (long) ways from being ready for prime time. So my question back to you is: why bother with digital capture?

[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

[Robert Brummitt]

I love color film! But I also love digital and black and white. I love it all. I'm a firm follower of "if you love stay with it".

[harrykauf]

I use it mainly colour negative for night time photography because it holds
highlight detail better. And I like the colour seperation.

[BetterSense]

Because I hate computers.