Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 58

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

  1. #31

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    West Chicago, IL, USA
    Posts
    103

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernice Loui View Post
    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!
    Christopher J May
    West Chicago, IL

  2. #32
    Unwitting Thread Killer Ari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    6,286

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

    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.
    Last edited by Ari; 29-Jan-2020 at 12:22.

  3. #33
    Tin Can's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    22,384

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

    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...
    Tin Can

  4. #34
    Alan Klein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    New Jersey was NYC
    Posts
    2,580

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

    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.

  5. #35

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

    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.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    88

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernice Loui View Post
    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?

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,901

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

    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

  8. #38
    Corran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    North GA Mountains
    Posts
    8,924

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernice Loui View Post
    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).
    Bryan | Blog | YouTube | Instagram | Portfolio
    All comments and thoughtful critique welcome

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,901

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

    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


    Quote Originally Posted by Corran View Post
    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).

  10. #40
    Peter De Smidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Fond du Lac, WI, USA
    Posts
    8,954

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

    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.
    “You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
    ― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know

Similar Threads

  1. 5x7 Printing Options (Contact Print? Scan and electronically print?)
    By morecfm in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 27-Dec-2017, 15:03
  2. Scan and process then print v's print from negative
    By 1stormcat in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 24-Jan-2015, 12:40
  3. 8 Foot Print from 617 Film Scan
    By gregmo in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 30-Jul-2013, 15:39
  4. Cost to produce a fine print
    By NER in forum Business
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 30-May-2011, 04:12
  5. Who do you use to scan your sheet film in the UK?
    By eddo123 in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 29-Dec-2008, 17:55

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •