Why use color film?

[David Luttmann]

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?

Of course, one needs to do something with those sheets. If you wish to scan them, and get a good scan...you're now looking at a good $80-$200 a scan. Call it $100. Now you're up to $10,500 a year.....only a 4 year investment to get that back.

[Nathan Potter]

We see in color. B&W is a simplification in form, tone and content. Both are beautiful and have a place in the scheme of things.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Brian Ellis]

I can understand using color film - with a print over about 11x14 there's still a sufficiently great quality difference between LF film and a good DSLR for some people to justify the expense of buying and processing the film. What I can't understand is why anyone still makes prints from the film in a darkroom unless they just enjoy working in a color darkroom. Otherwise the advantages of scanning and editing in Photoshop are so overwhelming that color darkroom print makes no sense at all to me.

While enjoying the process is certainly a legitimate reason to continue printing color in a darkroom, I can't understand why anyone would enjoy doing that. I did it for a couple years and it was beyond dull and boring - get the exposure right, get the color balance right, shove the paper in the processor, move on to the next print. Of course some people use masking to get beyond the limitations of the basic process and that's fine if they like it but making masks was even more boring than the basic color printing to me.

[BetterSense]

What I can't understand is why anyone still makes prints from the film in a darkroom

Maybe they value real, photographic color prints over a computer printout of a digital file that happens to originate photographically.

[Drew Wiley]

Jim - what does it cost you to scan an 8x10. Now factor that in, or the amortization of
the drum scanner and maintenance itself, if you have your own scanner. This is just a
cost comparison, of course. If you like to process your images for inkjet output, that's
fine. I personally enjoy darkroom work quite a bit, and prefer the look of the prints too.
What I don't like is some of the nasty color chem like the bleach in Ciba or blix in RA4.
Enlarger maintenance consists of a new lightbulb or two every few years, although if
you have to start from scratch, an 8x10 color enlarger can be a nasty investment.

[Jim Becia]

Jim - what does it cost you to scan an 8x10. Now factor that in, or the amortization of
the drum scanner and maintenance itself, if you have your own scanner. This is just a
cost comparison, of course. If you like to process your images for inkjet output, that's
fine. I personally enjoy darkroom work quite a bit, and prefer the look of the prints too.
What I don't like is some of the nasty color chem like the bleach in Ciba or blix in RA4.
Enlarger maintenance consists of a new lightbulb or two every few years, although if
you have to start from scratch, an 8x10 color enlarger can be a nasty investment.

Drew,

I scan two different ways. I have an old Epson 4870 and use that when I'm playing around. Without getting into rehashing about the quality of its scans, suffice to say it does a more than admirable job with some of my 4x5 work and it has paid for itself many, many times over. However, when I get really serious about a transparency, my cost on a drum scan varies on whom I use. I've paid $40 for some and up to $80 for others. Again, without hashing over drums scans, the scans for $40 were 600mb 16 bit and clean and perfect. I more than understand the cost of scanning and I mentioned that in my "rant." To me, it's a very small and minor cost in my process. Does it add up, certainly, but I still like the look of film. Please don't misunderstand me, I wish I had the time, knowledge, space to go a different way. It's not going to happen for me. My Epson 9600 was the perfect way to control my work. What used to kill me was having someone else print via a Lightjet or Lambda, etc. I'll be the first to admit that if you are not selling your work, a large inkjet (epson, canon, hp) is a rather expensive way to proceed. I find my costs very reasonable for this type of output. For me it was a perfect convergence of "old school" (film) and "new school" (inkjet output.) I certainly don't think inkjet is better, I just think it's better and more than cost effective for me. Hope this explains where I'm coming from. I didn't mean to take "why use color film" off on a tangent, but just wanted to show inkjet costs from someone who uses inkjet output on a regular basis.

I hope to shoot color film for a long time. I have two freezers with transparency film and I'm hoping the LF board will show enough interest in some 8x10 E100VS. Jim Becia

[Paul Kierstead]

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

Because I compose better on a 4x5" ground glass then looking through a tiny tunnel.

Also, because I want to. I also cook my own food (and grow some of it), drive a car which is not strictly functional, wear clothes that are not strictly functional, eat food for pleasure and not just nourishment, have sex for reasons beyond procreation, and, in general, live life not just survive it.

I suppose if I shot family pictures in K-mart, I should be utilitarian in my approach. But I don't, though did shoot kids with a mall Santa Claus for a number of years, and even the easter bunny for one disastrous year.

Note I am not suggesting that those who use digital are mall photographers (or that being a mall photographer is all bad), just that I don't see why everything has to be optimized for speed, time, etc. Use what works enough and makes you happy. Sometimes it might be an DSLR, it might be a P&S, or it might be a 20x24 polaroid.

[Bruce Watson]

Of course, one needs to do something with those sheets. If you wish to scan them, and get a good scan...you're now looking at a good $80-$200 a scan. Call it $100. Now you're up to $10,500 a year.....only a 4 year investment to get that back.

Not if you scan them yourself, which I do with a drum scanner that is long since payed off. And who in their right mind scans all their sheets anyway?

[Brian Ellis]

Maybe they value real, photographic color prints over a computer printout of a digital file that happens to originate photographically.

Only a color print made in a darkroom is a "real photographic color print?" What can I say. I guess there used to be people who thought only a print made from a wet plate was a real photographic print too.

[Drew Wiley]

Brian - the look is different. A digital print looks digital, an optical print looks optical.
I don't care which you prefer - it's a free country. But since film capture is itself optical I hope you can understand the connection without feeling threatened by it.