Likely Very Naive Question, sheet film then scan to produce a digital print.

[Bernice Loui]

Discussions and questions and strong emotional conflicts happen often here based on the entire topic of scanning sheet film then applying the digital print making process post process.

Question is, why scan sheet film if the print making process is digital. Seems it would be easier and more productive to start with a large digital file created with a the very best current digital camera instead of scanning sheet film then feeding that data into the digital print process.

Does not appear to be the ideal print making process to combine a hybrid system where there appears to be better means of achieving high quality digital based prints today.

Done the sheet film scanning thing with an Epson 4990, never warmed up to the results or process, but that is likely just me.

~Discuss.


Bernice

[BrianShaw]

I can’t believe that you just said it... and in writing. Yes, why?

Only reason I could propose is to utilize the perspective controls of a view camera and to benefit from the relative inexpensive film vs some sort of LF digital capture device... while still exploiting a path to digital manipulation and presentation.

[BrianShaw]

... or another... habit.

[Bernice Loui]

Digital back on a digital specific view camera can easily achieve traditional view camera movements (perspective control, tilt-shift-swing-rise-drop and....) as needed.

Does not make rational sense to me to use a sheet film camera to produce a digital data file when high quality digital is easily available.

~I'm trying to understand this.~


Bernice



I can’t believe that you just said it... and in writing. Yes, why?

Only reason I could propose is to utilize the perspective controls of a view camera and to benefit from the relative inexpensive film vs some sort of LF digital capture device... while still exploiting a path to digital manipulation and presentation.

[Sal Santamaura]

...why scan sheet film if the print making process is digital. Seems it would be easier and more productive to start with a large digital file created with a the very best current digital camera instead of scanning sheet film then feeding that data into the digital print process...

For color, there is no reason, unless one is enamored of spending time digitally spotting out dust. :)

For black and white, there's only one possible reason, namely, to take advantage of the extremely long life expectancy exhibited by polyester-based, properly processed and stored negatives. That's why HABS/HAER/HALS is willing to accept inkjet "contact prints" but still requires such negatives.

[BrianShaw]

Digital back on a digital specific view camera can easily achieve traditional view camera movements (perspective control, tilt-shift-swing-rise-drop and....) as needed.

Does not make rational sense to me to use a sheet film camera to produce a digital data file when high quality digital is easily available.

~I'm trying to understand this.~


Bernice

Yes, of course. The operative word I was using and, perhaps, should have visually emphasized... inexpensive.

I’m not alone in having plenty of LF camera/film but not a single digital back/camera suitable for movements.

Not trying to be argumentative, Bernice, but just saying that “easily available “ might not be a universal assumption that can be made.

[Bernice Loui]

Reminds one of what happened with ToyStory.. They almost lost the data base.
https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/how-pixar-saved-toy-story-2/

Difficulty with digital data files, they demand a matching digital system to access them. They are not accessible without the compatible digital data system. What happens to the data base if there are no compatible digital data systems?

Food for consideration:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/standards/will-todays-digital-movies-exist-in-100-years

There are photographic plates, films and images that date back to the very beginnings of photography, they do not need any special hardware to view them. They contain the visual information in a format that is mostly agreeable with the human visual system.


Bernice




For color, there is no reason, unless one is enamored of spending time digitally spotting out dust. :)

For black and white, there's only one possible reason, namely, to take advantage of the extremely long life expectancy exhibited by polyester-based, properly processed and stored negatives. That's why HABS/HAER/HALS is willing to accept inkjet "contact prints" but still requires such negatives.

[Jim Jones]

Huge digital files scanned from large format negatives can duplicate view camera movements in Photoshop. The edited file can be archived in a long life digital print.

[Tin Can]

Great topic and thread!

I do shoot color with DSLR only and most of that output is only online, but some printed by Pro Digital shops' I gave up on my own digi printers, after throwing out piles of Epson printers and one expensive Canon printer. Enjoyed that insanity 1997 to 2012. Even my 10 year old Brother Laser B&W office model is now kaput. Not replacing it either.

I did scan or now DSLR copy LF negs 4X5 and above, 35mm was once done by a dead Coolscan NIkon scanner. Never again. Any tiny format will be optically enlarged.

Ditto for LF and ULF.

I have wrote here over and over again that traditional DR printing is far less environmentally hazardous vs digi printers. A couple massive factories making emulsions on film and paper, vs zillions of tiny cameras, crappy printers and ink carts.


Today I am copying my 1998 mounted 35mm enlarged prints with DSLR, as I just found them...

[jp]

For using soft focus or older lenses, there would be a need to have a sensor size like the size of the film. I use LF for the old lenses, not for the utmost image detail, though overkill is good with image detail.

So there is not an affordable 4x5" sensor to replace tmax 400 or FP4+. Even if it were $20000 like a nice MF system, it would not make sense for most of us shooting <$1000 film per year.

Some subjects I can make a nice digital inkjet print. Some subjects, I can do a better job in the darkroom. Many people are doing VERY NICE hybrid work, especially those doing alt-process with digital negatives to produce different curves for the same chemistry or different size prints other than contact prints.

[Tin Can]

BTW, If I had saved all my photography coin, I could now buy any Pro Digi thing under $100K

But it will fail, so glad I did not...

slow learner...

[BrianShaw]

... or an Aston Martin. :)

[Tin Can]

I have had many cars/bikes that are now worth 10 times the new price

Life is short, live fast, sometimes we get even get old

I never thought I would live past 21, so many male friends died back then and later...








... or an Aston Martin. :)

[SergeyT]

>> Question is, why scan sheet film if the print making process is digital.

Because it is fun, it works and the prints look great.


>> Seems it would be easier and more productive to start with a large digital file created with a the very best current digital camera instead of scanning sheet film then feeding that data into the digital print process.

15-17 years ago the sensor size was limited to 8-12 MP. Film had the same great resolution as it does today. If we had to wait all this years for the "best current digital camera" arrival we would lose many opportunities to take photos.
The "best current digital camera" is not cheap even today.
The amount of details in 20"x30"prints from drum-scanned Provia\Velvia in 35mm is very close (equal to my eye) to the one from a modern 24 MP sensor. Fuji with its 100MP sensor is still trying to win the resolution game against large format film.
I personally like how different film emulsions render certain scenes. There are reasons why a lot of people are replicating (simulating) "film look" with their pure digital workflow.
The way film renders moving water is hard to achieve with digital
The DR of negative film together with digital printing allows to completely avoid anything that is called HDR or "tone mapping" in pure digital world.
The duration of exposure on film is limited only by photographers patience. Longer durations do not translate into "more noise" in the image.

[sanking]

Discussions and questions and strong emotional conflicts happen often here based on the entire topic of scanning sheet film then applying the digital print making process post process.

Question is, why scan sheet film if the print making process is digital. Seems it would be easier and more productive to start with a large digital file created with a the very best current digital camera instead of scanning sheet film then feeding that data into the digital print process.

Does not appear to be the ideal print making process to combine a hybrid system where there appears to be better means of achieving high quality digital based prints today.

Done the sheet film scanning thing with an Epson 4990, never warmed up to the results or process, but that is likely just me.

~Discuss.


Bernice


In a broader sense, learning to use a view camera is highly educational, regardless of final image quality. 1. Use of the view camera connects the photographer to the earliest days of photography, as some of the skills are essentially those used in the 1800s, including use of camera and exposing and developing film. 2. Using LF film teaches one discipline in choosing and framing the subject in a way that is different from using 35mm or medium format film, and most types of digital work. 3. The use of movements such as tilt and shift is easy to see on the ground glass of a LF camera, and one get immediate visual feedback from making the adjustments, which is often not at all the case with the small sensor of digital cameras with movements

Although I have transitioned from film to digital in the last decade for most of my new work I believe there is still a sweet spot for image quality with B&W film in the 4X5" to 5X7" range and hybrid methodology, with high quality scanning of the film and digital file image processing skills. Perhaps not the easiest path to follow, but a unique and perfectly valid one in my opinion. This opinion is based on a fair amount of practical experience as I have been scanning and using a hybrid workflow with LF and ULF B&W film for almost two decades, and am also fairly skilled in digital capture, including the use of camera systems with movements. There are indeed unique image possibilities possible with a hybrid work flow (alternative processes for example) with both film and digital, and it seems to me far from a binary proposition of this or that.

Sandy

[alan_b]

Digital back on a digital specific view camera can easily achieve traditional view camera movements (perspective control, tilt-shift-swing-rise-drop and....) as needed.

Have you priced high-end digital MF systems? For low-volume low-pressure work, a film camera is cheap, doesn't depreciate, and you can pay for film/developing/scanning as you go.

As soon as you start talking movements w/ MFDBs, things like microlens ripple, color crosstalk, LCCs, demosiac artifacts, color desaturation at edges of the image circle, micron-scale parallelism, etc. all start pointing you at Very Expensive Things. Think $5-10k camera bodies, $6-10k lenses, $20-50k backs...

[Jim Andrada]

Frankly I like the look of what I get with the hybrid process better than the look of digital capture. Particularly with B&W.

I use digital of course - a Cannon 5D from 2006, a Canon 5D III, an Olympus Pen F, and a Mamiya 645 with digital back (and film back too.) The Pen F, 5D III and Mamiya all have around 23 Mpix. But the images look a lot different. Of the three, I prefer the AFD by a large margin. But I like my 5 x 7 hybrid process prints even more. I think they look less "clinical" that the digitally captured prints.

Maybe I'm crazy, but that's why.

[darr]

No Jim you are not crazy, I like the look as well.

I shoot film and digitize it for web and printing.
Raw digital has a look of its own and I much prefer the 'film + digital look'.
But I do shoot digital cameras, all the way up to medium format bc they have their purpose too.

Best regards,
Darr

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I have done both digital and film. And prefer film. Even with the hybrid approach, the film offers a very different feel and look that is warm and unique. Digital files, modern digital lenses all tend to be too perfect, too sterile and not unique. In many ways it can be the operator and I find many who take 3 or more images of one scene 10 times over.

Like at the Grand Canyon, sunrise/sunset will offer just a few moments of perfection that a large format film photographer will patiently set up for and wait for the right moment before taking 1 or 2 images. The digital person will set up a few minutes before and then for the next 15-20 minutes is like someone with severe add, not all digital photographers, but many. Large format landscape photography and other genres of large format are like hunting, you scout your location, setup and stalk your prey getting into your own little bubble and nothing exists outside that bubble. Then as you breathe slowly you take your shot at the right moment in time. I find digital makes me and many impatient and wasteful.

It is as much about image capture as it is being in the moment, one with the land and enjoying what is in front of you more than what is going on inside a light box. That emotional state also makes a difference in what you image.

[Amedeus]

Not a naive question at all.

All my film is digitized and stored as such. Keep the negatives of course. I currently don't have a darkroom, so I'm limited to digital post processing and printing. Although I'm missing the wet prints and contact prints (I'll get back to the latter), I'm enjoying the many different digital printing options and base materials.

I keep shooting film based material because of view cameras of course. Different workflow, different pace, different reflection process. Nothing new.

As for pure digital work, I use standard camera bodies but I also put my MF digital backs on customized view cameras. From 4x5 with sliding back to a Sinar P3. (And mostly shooting soft focus lenses on digital in this particular configuration.)

The possibilities are endless.

YMMV,

[Jeroen]

I find a fully digital workflow sterile, even MF - I own a Fuji GFX 50s. There's no sensor larger than 645 available, so the distinct look of LF is lost.

A hybrid workflow has the best of both worlds: you get the natural look of film and the ease of total reproducibility. And wow, now you can print colour on baryta paper! Inkjet paper will probably last longer dan any colour RC paper, too.

Having said all that, in my eyes the tonality (or should I say depth) of a B/W silver gelatine baryta print is still superior. And I really love the smell of fix on my hands!

[pgk]

If for no other reason, for the sheer delight of using very old lenses as they were designed to be used - to throw a very large image. This is not reproducible using any digital system as yet. Having copied old transparencies and negatives I also find that they can have distinctly different qualities to them and these can benefit from digital printing. I don't see any reasons not to shoot film and digitise it. Its another choice which is great.

[Peter De Smidt]

Just consider Sandy King's carbon transfer prints from digital negatives... Or consider Lenswork's prints from scans of prints...These are simply other ways of making beautiful prints. Maybe you want a big print, but you can't carry an ULF camera to the location, or maybe you can't get the shot you want with a larger camera, or you simply prefer the control available in digital post production, or you don't want the expense involved in ULF work, whether in time or money, or.....? Other people's reasons may not be good reasons for you, but clearly they are good enough for a fair number of people. The very same, "Why do that?" can be directed at LF photographers... "Our reasons are good!" can be exclaimed by anyone...

[Alan Klein]

Why paint when you can shoot a photograph? Why drive a stick when cars have automatic transmissions? Why listen to vinyl instead of digital music? Why read a book when you can watch the movie? Why do anything when you can rest and do nothing?

[Tin Can]

+100000000

:)

[esearing]

Phases of artistry lead to the exploration of tools and media that allow us to express ourselves. Why did you not hand write a letter posing the question and have it hand delivered?

[Tin Can]

Art comes after work, when we have time for the sublime

When we are sated from the hunt, rested, we turn inward and outward

Why are sheep dogs rescuing Kaulas in the great fire...

Why do dolphins stay in the sea

we are all in a moment

[Corran]

Film looks different and no amount of digital signal processing can emulate that, especially with regards to highlights.

There are also no readily-available digital systems with sensors of 4x5 inch size (or even close).

And, IMO, digital images are just boring for the most part.

[Louis Pacilla]

IMO, digital images are just boring for the most part.

I could not agree more! Or maybe I'm BORED when working in digital. It leaves me feeling flat & uninvolved. JMHO.

[Tin Can]

But we all love sitting at a computer and talking about film...

I doubt 4X5 digital sensors ever go into mass production

analog sensors aka film works fine for us, but industry uses small digi sensors well for robotics, factories, surveillance...

and we love old glass, the rarer and bigger the better...

after the Fall (https://youtu.be/dUKt1a6I3yw), perhaps we come to a better place

[GhoSStrider]

Question is, why scan sheet film if the print making process is digital.

...

~Discuss.

The primary reason is practicality. I live in a small one bedroom apartment with my wife. There simply isn’t enough room for me to set up any kind of darkroom that I’d want to spend any length of time in. I can, however, develop film in daylight containers; even 8x10 now thanks to 20th Century Camera. By doing so and then by scanning and printing on my Epson P800, I have a process that works for my current situation. It used to be easier to find a community darkroom but lately that’s become more of a challenge. Community darkrooms are now expensive, far away or both. The hybrid approach allows me to continue to use the cameras I love to use and output on reasonably archival and aesthetically pleasing media.

Additionally, I’ll say that the hybrid workflow allows me to achieve results that match my vision far more easily than traditional printing. I’m much more adept in Lightroom than I am in the darkroom. I’m sure with enough time, that would no longer be the case but refer to my points above why getting that experience is a challenge.

Are my prints the epitome of large format craft? Of course not. But are they satisfactory enough to allow me to engage with a pastime that I love in a way that works for my current situation? An emphatic yes!

[Ari]

Some good answers above that I agree with very much, ultimately it comes down to choice.
One friend of mine cannot conceive of having to scan film, he gets the latest/greatest MFDB every year. He thinks I'm crazy for processing and scanning film. Maybe he's right, but those are the kinds of images I want to make.

I can't imagine having a printing darkroom again, with the massive enlarger, and all the attendant gizmos, calibrations, paper types, lenses, filters, etc etc that that entails. My house and my life are full enough.
Everyone thinks the next guy's methods are crazy and time-wasting. What can you do? Keep on doing what you like.

I like being able to print digitally from a file that came from film. The look and feel of it is still impressive to me, I'm more involved in the process than had it been done 100% digitally.
And I'm much more enthusiastic doing it because I got to skip the wet printing part.

[Tin Can]

However it is also easy to contact print any LF neg in a small place, AKA bathroom, and process the wet print the same way, same tools, one does the film

and far cheaper than a mess of electronic gear

Full disclosure, I do all methods above, using 3 rooms of a 5 room house...

[Alan Klein]

I've been shooting medium format film for a long while. But, I don't have a darkroom or do wet processing. I send the film out for processing and then I scan my film when I get it back from the lab. Now the guys in my photo club who all shoot and print digitally know I shoot medium format film. When I've discussed it with them, they;ve been very respectful. They haven't said too much. So now I just bought a 4x5 large format camera.

I haven't told them yet. :)

[Ernest MacMillan]

I find that the original question precisely describes what I do. At the same time, it makes me ask myself why do I even bother. Given that this is a large format photography forum, I feel moved to justify and explain with some hope that at least someone else would want to shoot some sheet film themselves or understand why. That is to say, I believe it is still worthwhile to shoot LF with the aim of creating something of craft that expresses more than the pleasure of using obsolete or arcane methods, to make something that could no doubt be made quicker, better and completely using the latest products of technical wizardry, even and especially when the final product is rendered digitally through scanning and inkjet printing.

On the one hand you may create monochrome images from sheet film using traditional darkroom methods in a very satisfying way in which you maintain mindful control of all stages from conception to the final product. If so then, you may safely ignore the digital revolution for your work. When it comes to color images, my only product, the situation is dramatically different. I shoot chromes because it provides me with a real artefact that can be examined directly (on a light table) to see what I got. This started for me long ago as the only way I could afford to see what I was doing. It is expensive enough and difficult enough to capture that image that I use a view camera on a fixed tripod to control image selections with shifts and rise/fall and perspective control and sharpness distribution through swings and tilts to attempt to capture that landscape I have carefully composed on the ground glass. For me and likely for many others, this introspective and deliberative process produce images that I have almost never been able to duplicate with my happy snapping digital camera. 4x5 is the balance point between quality (and, no, for me personally, 35mm/medium format were never/rarely good enough) and size that still gives a slide that you may view with naked eyes and estimate its value, but the equipment is still affordable and portable (compare to 8x10 or larger). That I have to scan it is so I may print it, and I love modern inkjet prints and the control the printer has over the process.

[gnd2]

Question is, why scan sheet film if the print making process is digital. Seems it would be easier and more productive to start with a large digital file created with a the very best current digital camera instead of scanning sheet film then feeding that data into the digital print process.


Little late to the party but I'm curious, what digital camera do you think fits this bill?

[Bernice Loui]

Thanks for all the replies to this question.

This question came to mind after reading about scanning sheet film with a scanner (any) or using a DSLR to digitize a film image by direct copy or stitching several image sections together to create a image data file. It just appears to be more direct and efficient to start with a digital image recording device and keep the entire image production system in the digital realm from start to finish. For traditional film, seems better if one were to do film based images to keep the entire image process as film to print including the wet darkroom process.


What I've come be more and more set in "my" image preferences based on looking at many digital based prints, not for me. There is just something to any digital based print that does not agree with my set of visual preferences.... which is very likely of no significant relevance other than another visual opinion.

In the end, image making process, any image making process is just a means to an end what ever the print results might be.

This was far more a question of curiosity and trying to understand than to impose an individual preference or discuss-debate what is "best-ideal"..

Kinda like starting out with believing only the everything sharp group f64 orthodoxy school is the only way.. It's not by any means.


:)
Bernice

[Corran]

It just appears to be more direct and efficient to start with a digital image recording device and keep the entire image production system in the digital realm from start to finish. For traditional film, seems better if one were to do film based images to keep the entire image process as film to print including the wet darkroom process.

But why?

What is direct and efficient? You say "it appears," as if that is self-evident, so please elaborate why you think that.

As one who is familiar with film, you should know the ability of film to retain highlights and have certain visual qualities, be it film-related or film-size related or even lens related. Since you can't, for example, shoot a 300mm f/4.5 Tessar on an 8x10-sized sensor (leaving aside the one oddball custom back made for that advertising photog), what digital camera would give you the same look? Well, a 44x33 millimeter "medium-format" sensor would need a roughly 53mm f/0.8 lens to start with to get the same DOF wide-open. Even ignoring DOF, what digital backs have normal lenses of Tessar, Dagor, etc. design?

Obviously for some types of photography, like maximum DOF and sharpness, digital imaging solutions may well mostly match the "look" of a film image, though I still would posit they don't look the same and inherently can't, due to the differences in how light is captured.

IMO, it should be fairly self-evident that one might want specifically the look and feel of a LF image (or any film image from any size camera) but the power and ability afforded by a digital image (scan) both in post-processing and printing. While I personally prefer darkroom prints, I certainly understand and have made "digital" prints myself (be it light-sensitive paper exposed by lasers or inkjet).

[Bernice Loui]

Question began some years ago during a visit to Bear Images in Palo Alto. They are a "pro" digital imaging speciality shop, dealer for Leaf, Phase One and various "pro" digital cameras and digital backs. They provide everything in the digital image making system for the "pro" digital studio.

They have a lot of digital images on display. Noted the visual qualities of these images and digital image making tools.

With more passage of time looking at many digital based images in museums to street fairs to shared images. Digital based images began to have a digital personality to my visual senses.

My own personal experience with both mirrorless digital and scanned film images then made into digital prints were just not visually satisfying compared to traditional wet darkroom prints. BUT and this is a BIG but, it's been many years since I've many any darkroom prints. Knowing how papers have changes today and the limitations of what is available, what was once easy to achieve might not be achievable at all today. That was why the interest into digital based prints.

It just appears to me, no matter what is done to a digital based print, there is some remnant of the digital process in the finished print. This being the case, why not keep the entire print making process digital as it does appear to be easier than trying to do a hybrid process.

Do believe there is a place for digital and there are some VERY good things about digital based images. They are just not the same visually as a very good print made using the traditional film to wet darkroom print.

Not sure if this answers the question, but it is what motivated the original question.


Bernice



But why?

What is direct and efficient? You say "it appears," as if that is self-evident, so please elaborate why you think that.

As one who is familiar with film, you should know the ability of film to retain highlights and have certain visual qualities, be it film-related or film-size related or even lens related. Since you can't, for example, shoot a 300mm f/4.5 Tessar on an 8x10-sized sensor (leaving aside the one oddball custom back made for that advertising photog), what digital camera would give you the same look? Well, a 44x33 millimeter "medium-format" sensor would need a roughly 53mm f/0.8 lens to start with to get the same DOF wide-open. Even ignoring DOF, what digital backs have normal lenses of Tessar, Dagor, etc. design?

Obviously for some types of photography, like maximum DOF and sharpness, digital imaging solutions may well mostly match the "look" of a film image, though I still would posit they don't look the same and inherently can't, due to the differences in how light is captured.

IMO, it should be fairly self-evident that one might want specifically the look and feel of a LF image (or any film image from any size camera) but the power and ability afforded by a digital image (scan) both in post-processing and printing. While I personally prefer darkroom prints, I certainly understand and have made "digital" prints myself (be it light-sensitive paper exposed by lasers or inkjet).

[Peter De Smidt]

I've seen prints made where one part of the process is digital, and where I couldn't see any digital artifacts without a magnifier. For instance, I have Wynn Bullock's selection of prints made by Lenswork. They're made from scans of prints, imagesetter negatives were made, and the negatives were contact printed on traditional fiber paper, toned.....They're just as beautiful as any purely analogue prints that I have. I also know a bunch of experienced silver printers who claim that they make better prints now with digital techniques than they did in a wet darkroom. I see no reason to doubt them. You are, of course, welcome to your biases, but I expect that you haven't seen some of the very best prints made with a digital element in their workflow.

[Bernice Loui]

Visit to the Weston Gallery and other similar places and traditional prints made here says otherwise (IMO).

https://www.bearimages.com/Bear_Images_Photographic,_Inc./Bear_Images_Welcome.html
Local museums, gallery exhibit and ... were included into the assessment process.

large collection of printed books of photographic work. None of the books have reproduced images as good as the original prints.

It's all relative, this does not mean a digital print cannot or does not results in a highly expressive print, it just results in a different visual aesthetic.. nothing more, nothing less.


Bernice

[Vaughn]

The type and quality of the tool(s) used by an artist directly affects the work the artist makes. For better or worse depends on the artist, not the tools.

[BrianShaw]

The type and quality of the tool(s) used by an artist directly affects the work the artist makes. For better or worse depends on the artist, not the tools.

Like.

[mdarnton]

You are, of course, welcome to your biases, but I expect that you haven't seen some of the very best prints made with a digital element in their workflow.
Several years ago the Art Institute of Chicago had an exhibition of large prints by an Italian photographer. The prints were uniformly gorgeous and equivalent. According to the labels, about half were digital, half silver. Before reading the tags I spent some time trying to figure out which was which, and eventually realized that there were two different underlying paper tones, nearly identical but not quite, and that one was digital, one silver. Otherwise, no difference at all.

I use film and then scan because the limitations of film cause me to work in a different way than digital, and I prefer my film results. The subjects certainly act different in front of an 8x10 view camera vs a Nikon digital, too.

Every time the subject of soft-focus lenses comes up, I see some of the same people in this discussion on the "don't scan" side saying that there is NO way to match the effect of a LF soft-focus lens without one. So there's that too, since I use SF lenses a lot.

[Peter De Smidt]

Isn't it clear that nothing anyone says here on this issue will affect Bernice at all? If that's true, what's the point? Bernice, what would it take to get you to change your mind?

[brad martin]

Let's be honest.

The vast majority of digital shooters would not be involved in photography at all if it wasn't for the instant gratification that digital offers.

Push a button and bingo there's a photograph on my LCD.

No skill required. Awesome.

Somebody has to say it.

I watched these silly threads for years.

It's tiresome.

[Corran]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread, and a rather ignorant remark to boot. One-click auto-exposure was around for decades before digital.

[Bernice Loui]

Zero about changing mind. This is a curiosity question seeking opinions and views on this topic.

~The replies have been enlightening and interesting.


Thanks to all that replied :)
Bernice



Isn't it clear that nothing anyone says here on this issue will affect Bernice at all? If that's true, what's the point? Bernice, what would it take to get you to change your mind?

[Ben Calwell]

What Sandy said a few posts ago. I use a view camera and then scan the negs. I also make contact prints in my darkroom. I just like working with a view camera because I like the pace and the thought that goes into each image. I like the process involved in using a view camera. For me, it's more fun and satisfying than using a digital camera.

[Jim Galli]

Brute force. 8X10 camera and ancient lenses. I haven't gotten over the thrill of pulling the negs out of the JOBO and hanging them up to dry. I don't make prints. Pity. So the scanner is just a first look device. Sadly that's where the process largely ends. There's no reason to make "good" prints. I used to do that and there are piles and piles of them. For what? It's about time for me to do some Pt/Pd prints. About every 5 years . . . and I know it's been longer than that.

No digital system has got the sheer brute force of what a lens can put onto a large piece of sheet film. The soft focus lenses working in the same format that they were designed to work in. If it wasn't for that, heck, I get why all the Doctors and Lawyers are abandoning their 4X5's. For sharp color pictures, digital capture is the logical best.

[RLangham]

I mean, other people have said this, but it's nothing like using a digital camera. There are too many unique characteristics of LF film.

There is no digital camera made, except for large format scanbacks, which have their own problems, that will give you such shallow DoF at normal focal lengths and middling apertures. The ability to do blurred-background portraits in broad daylight with fast film is nice. This is especially true now that most consumer digital cameras are going to sensors even smaller than 35mm-equivalent, usually APS-C or M4/3rds, leading to a situation where you have to use very long lenses and very wide apertures to get good background blur for portraits and closeup photography.

No camera sensor will naturally produce any of the unique tonal responses that you can get from different combinations of B/W film and a developer/developers. A scanner can capture this, but if the digital element is the thing actually making the image, these unique qualities will be absent. And then don't get me started on color film!

Most digital sensors are emphatically not optimized for B/W, and with small sensor sizes like you have in digital cameras, the interlacing or whatever becomes noticeable in the loss of resolution. Not so with a scanner, especially given the area of large-format.

And let's be real--the size of large format is a huge boon. It is so much easier to get a usable enlargement out of a LF negative, photographically or scanning digitally, then out of a small format photo, film or digital.

So why LF+scan?

Because it's a cheap way to have some fantastic and desirable photographic characteristics unobtainable with most digital cameras.

[RLangham]

The vast majority of digital shooters would not be involved in photography at all if it wasn't for the instant gratification that digital offers.

Push a button and bingo there's a photograph on my LCD.

No skill required. Awesome.

I don't even shoot digital and I know that that's completely untrue. There's still plenty of room for skill. Every DSLR I've ever seen has aperture priority and manual modes, plus a switch to disable autofocus--remember the last Canon film SLR's from the 90's and early 00's? Same thing. I could make art with one, just like I regularly make art (at least, I think it's art) with a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye that has fixed focus, fixed aperture and fixed speed. Composition is central to art photography--no one is going to care what aperture you were shooting at when they're in the gallery looking at your silver prints. They'll care that it's a crisp image that's well-composed.

Also, not all photography needs to be high art. Sometimes people just want to take snapshots of their family. Sometimes working photographers just need to take basic wedding photos without worrying about film stock and chemicals.

Lastly, what does that have to do with LF hybrid photography (film + digital scanner)?

[neil poulsen]

Digital back on a digital specific view camera can easily achieve traditional view camera movements (perspective control, tilt-shift-swing-rise-drop and....) as needed.

Does not make rational sense to me to use a sheet film camera to produce a digital data file when high quality digital is easily available.

~I'm trying to understand this.~

Bernice

My sentiments exactly! A good term for this is direct imaging (versus indirect imaging with scans), and it's what I've done.

I purchased a Phase One P45+ digital back from Digital Transitions for about twice the price of a good digital camera. Not the case with most refurbished backs, mine had less than 2500 activations, and it came with a year's factory warranty. The price was a bit steep, but it's about 8% of what they were new. Resolution is 39MP from a 24mmX48mm sensor. (That's twice the size of a "full-frame" sensor.) Enough resolution for what I will ever need, this will give me a 16x20 print with some room to spare.

I use it with an Arca Swiss 6x9 view camera and film lenses. I already had 47mm, 58mm, and 75mm lenses. For wide angle, I found a 35mm Rodenstock f4.5 lens for a quite reasonable price. This lens demonstrates some chromatic aberration, but not enough to worry about. And besides, it can be corrected in Capture One, free software that's available when processing files from Phase One digital backs. (Capture One corresponds to Adobe's Lightroom. It's first rate imaging software.) This lens has huge coverage for a digital back, so for super wide angle, stitching is an option. With lenses of this small focal length, one has to be careful that the back of the lens doesn't interfere with the rear standard of the camera. To avoid this, I have a special "N" standard, Arca ground glass and adapter.

I'd been working toward this capability for quite a while, so I already had the camera and all but one lens. Still, it was a tad bit expensive, but maybe not quite so bad, when one considers the cost of a good scanner, film, and all the time and frustration that can go into getting decent scans from color negatives.

[Sal Santamaura]

....I purchased a Phase One P45+ digital back...Resolution is 39MP from a 24mmX48mm sensor...

The Capture Integration specs say this sensor is 49.1mm x 36.8mm.

[schafphoto]

Indeed, to Sal's point on page 1.


For black and white, there's only one possible reason, namely, to take advantage of the extremely long life expectancy exhibited by polyester-based, properly processed and stored negatives. That's why HABS/HAER/HALS is willing to accept inkjet "contact prints" but still requires such negatives.

I do HABS/HAER/HALS and digital scanning is in the guidelines. So those (few) HABS photographers have a choice of contact prints or scans and "digital print cards" but both are a required part of the HABS workflow. As such, profit/loss/time come into the equation differently than if the photographer is choosing the process based on his/her own finances/time/aesthetics. I have seen/made some shockingly bad analog prints and seen/made some stunning digital prints (and wiza/werza). I continue to make prints for myself in the darkroom and will continue to make scanned negs for $. I'm just lucky that people are paying me to use the big heavy camera instead of the little camera.

That said, I would RATHER spend my time in the darkroom getting my tongs wet, but the most profitable way to deliver the products my clients need, is digital camera scans of the 5x7 and 4x5 negatives and printing on an Epson desktop printer. But that's a pretty unusual case study knowing how many people are doing HABS work vs. how many people are doing large format for art and fun.

There's a reason the term "expensive hobby" is redundant ;-) ... digital or analog, our aesthetic makes us do it anyway, for the most part nobody NEEDS a photo to live. Maybe an associated question in this day of Covid-19 is: "Is photography essential?" and for this group: "Is large format photography essential?"

~Discuss ;-)

[Michael Rosenberg]

I haven't read all the comments to this thread, but wanted to add my two cents worth.

I think technology of full frame cameras are improving rapidly, and can rival what is obtainable with LF cameras. Perspective correction 35 mm lenses are still somewhat limited and not as capable as movements of a LD camera, but affordable. Nikon introduced in-camera focus stacking for DOF and improved density range. Sony a7r4 has a pixel shift merge in camera function that can increase resolution comparable to 4x5 film. For architecture and large prints of landscapes the digital technology cannot meet the resolution of a 4x5, or larger, film negative. Resolution is the ability to distinguish two points from each other. Thus,, if I were to photograph a cathedral (which I have done) I would want to capture as much detail as possible to produce an expressive print.


The other case for a LF camera is for making portraits. I have seen very impressive portraits of people that demonstrate to relationship of distance between the subject and the camera, Coupled with brass portrait lenses there is no comparison to capturing with a digital camera.

Mechanics aside, there are many aesthetic reasons for using LF cameras/film.

Mike

[Jim Andrada]

I have to admit I'm thinking seriously about getting a 30 - 40 MP back for my Hasselblad V, I really like the results I get with the 645 but in the end I prefer looking at an IMAGE on a ground glass to looking through a camera at the real world - I find myself working so much differently with the Hassy, or the RB67 or a TLR than with any digicam or DSLR or rangefinder. The image looks different when it's bounded.

I recently just unearthed (so to speak) a few 5 x 7 negatives from the early 70's and ran them through the IQsmart last night. The sensation of working with them is so much different than working with the images from my Digicams. Are the photos less crisp/sharp? Probably, but there's a much greater sense of texture with the big negatives - the images just feel different to me, particularly for B&W. Less clinical if you will. Could be just me but it feels so much different working with the scans than with the direct capture.
Having said that, I think the reason I like the 645 digicam better than the Canons is due to the larger pixel size - I think the pixel count is interesting, but bigger pixels feel better to me.

[Peter De Smidt]

Rationalization really is a powerful thing, and this thread is a prime example of people rationalizing their biases. You want something to be true, and, by darned, you'll find something to justify it. Consider confabulation. Psychologists discovered that people come up with reasons for their behavior, and when they don't have one, their subconscious will make a false one up, and the person will consciously think that's why they did so and so. Jonathan Haidt, a research psychological, likens the conscious mind to a lawyer the subconscious hires, and the subconscious doesn't care how its desires are satisfied, just as long as they are.

Consider x and y. If they are two different things, then there will always be something different about them. That's a necessary truth. One can always point to that difference and say, "That's why I prefer it!"

Bigger pixels are better? That's bull. I had a D200, and now I have a D600. The D600 has smaller pixels than the D200, but the D600 takes higher quality photos.

The reason people use a hybrid workflow is that, for their purposes, they find something better about it. Some serious people, people who print for a living, including people who printed both in a darkroom at the highest level, feel that they make better prints with a hybrid workflow than they did in the darkroom. Perhaps they are just rationalizing, but I've seen some of their prints, and they are terrific.

Why not avoid all the BS. If you want to do something, and it doesn't hurt others, and the opportunity costs are not too great, well, just do it. Wanting to do it, or not do it, is reason enough.