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

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...

... or an Aston Martin. :)

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrianShaw

... or an Aston Martin. :)

---

>> 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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...

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.

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

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.

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,