35mm Scans VS FF digital

[ChristopherCoy]

I shoot FF digital, and I'm learning about printing digital negatives etc. A question that I have though is, what are the differences between a scanned 35mm negative, and a full frame digital file? Why would someone prefer to start with a scanned digital file, instead of a straight digital file?

I know that's a very generic question, because preferences will differ from person to person, and the end justifies the means, but from a quality perspective what are the differences?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Why would someone prefer to start with a scanned digital file, instead of a straight digital file?

Tonality that feels 'right' rather than something that feels like it was designed for people who spend their time debating spec sheets.

 

[jtk]

#1 dust #2 focus #3 deficiencies in original film #3 shorter tonal scale inherent in film Vs raw.

 

[cjbecker]

I only shoot slide film in 35mm, but its for the feel of the image, the archivability, the workflow, and the process as a whole. Its just feels right.

 

[jtk]

Don't worry about how things "feel" to other people especially if they are afraid of digital.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

#1 dust #2 focus #3 deficiencies in original film #3 shorter tonal scale inherent in film Vs raw.

1 and 2 are present in either variety, especially when you consider they're both based on the behaviors of the photographer. Film can have dust, just as a sensor can, and focus has everything to do with the photographer.

 

[MattKing]

My preferred final product is an optical darkroom print. The options available for going from a digital file to an optical darkroom print are either low in quality, exteremely expensive or require use of digital negatives and (frequently) lower resolution final product processes.
Scanned film can give extraordinarily flexible, high quality results. Digital capture can as well, but when I wan't to work in "both" worlds, I prefer the film.
The most important word in what I've written here is "prefer".

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I only shoot slide film in 35mm, but its for the feel of the image, the archivability, the workflow, and the process as a whole. Its just feels right.

The archive-ability is the only thing that I really struggle with in digital. When's the last time you used a floppy disc, or DVD for that matter? It's a real concern that I have.

As for the rest, if the print is the ultimate goal I only see the workflow as reversed from one form to the other. One you start with a bunch of extra data (digital) whereas film puts you three steps closer to the finished product.

BUT, I'm not sure if I need that Nikon F5 to go along with my D700's or not.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

The most important word in what I've written here is "prefer".

I know, and that's the issue I'm fighting with. I nearly bought an F5 the other day, and then hesitated and didn't. I told myself that I can do anything I wanted/needed to do with the gear I have. But every now and then I like to go slow, think about my shot, and shoot a roll.

 

[MattKing]

BUT, I'm not sure if I need that Nikon F5 to go along with my D700's or not.

Something smaller than an F5 might preserve the options in a more usable package.
I remain a proponent of projecting slide film.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Something smaller than an F5 might preserve the options in a more usable package.
I remain a proponent of projecting slide film.

Like the yaschica rangefinder I have in storage?

 

[jim10219]

The archive-ability is the only thing that I really struggle with in digital. When's the last time you used a floppy disc, or DVD for that matter? It's a real concern that I have.

As for the rest, if the print is the ultimate goal I only see the workflow as reversed from one form to the other. One you start with a bunch of extra data (digital) whereas film puts you three steps closer to the finished product.

BUT, I'm not sure if I need that Nikon F5 to go along with my D700's or not.

Yeah, but you can still buy a Blu-ray player that will read DVD's from just about any computer store. And you can still find floppy discs and readers on the internet if you need one. We had to buy a zip disc drive at my work a while back to recover some old files that someone needed. Sure it's a dead format, and has been dead for decades. But it's not gone.

Though, you should be updating your archives to new formats as they become available. It always sounds like a larger hassle than it is because as new media comes out, the storage sizes and speeds increase with it. So you spend an afternoon updating your archives when you invest in a new technology. And you don't have to do that every time a new technology becomes available. You an skip a few generations if you want.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Though, you should be updating your archives to new formats as they become available. It always sounds like a larger hassle than it is because as new media comes out, the storage sizes and speeds increase with it. So you spend an afternoon updating your archives when you invest in a new technology. And you don't have to do that every time a new technology becomes available. You an skip a few generations if you want.

It's taken me nearly a week to clean up, clean off, and consolidate two drives that I've had since about 2009. I deleted over 433,800 files, I'm down to about 15K, and I still have the 500gb hard drive from my old iMac to go through.

It was much easier to go through the binder and box of negatives that I have though.

 

[StepheKoontz]

For me B&W film has a look I can't get from a digital camera. I use digital for a lot of stuff, am far from "afraid of it". I shoot with a D4 and a D800 regularly, especially for semi-pro event shooting I do. But I still find B&W film unique, and the same can be said for slide film.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

For me B&W film has a look I can't get from a digital camera. I use digital for a lot of stuff, am far from "afraid of it". I shoot with a D4 and a D800 regularly, especially for semi-pro event shooting I do. But I still find B&W film unique, and the same can be said for slide film.

And that's what I'm asking. Film to paper is unique. But does it change from film, to scan, to paper?

 

[MattKing]

Like the yaschica rangefinder I have in storage?

As long as you don't miss the interchangeable lenses, sure.

 

[MattKing]

And that's what I'm asking. Film to paper is unique. But does it change from film, to scan, to paper?

Yes - because the intervening digital negatives have much less resolution than film.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Yes - because the intervening digital negatives have much less resolution than film.

so by scanning a 35mm negative, making a digital file, enlarging it digitally, printing the negative, and making a contact print... essentially you're reducing the quality of the original image? So there'd be no point in my trying it unless that was my intent to begin with....

 

[MattKing]

so by scanning a 35mm negative, making a digital file, enlarging it digitally, printing the negative, and making a contact print... essentially you're reducing the quality of the original image? So there'd be no point in my trying it unless that was my intent to begin with....

If your goal is maximizing resolution, than the best approach is to work entirely within one type of workflow - either all analogue if your final output is to be analogue, or all digital if your final output is to be digital.
But maximizing resolution is rarely a goal that matters much - one can achieve very high quality and, more importantly, enjoy many wonderful qualities, without maximizing resolution.
The post that I was responding to was a question about differences, not preferences, so I pointed out one of those differences.
As you move back and forth between analogue and digital tools in the midst of a hybrid workflow, you are bound to employ tools that vary in their capacity to record and render detail. Tools such as digital printers which are designed to print things at viewing resolution aren't likely to be able to display as much detail as something like films which are intended to record detail at a resolution that can survive enlargement. But that doesn't always matter, because digital negatives (as an example) are designed to create things that aren't designed to be enlarged - they are designed to be viewed as is.
We just moved, so I can't relate an observation that I could when we were in our old place, because very few of the things being considered have found their places on the wall. But in our old place I could turn from the computer and look at two relatively small (~8"x10") prints.
One was a print that I made in the darkroom from a 35mm negative, and then toned to my taste. It is my image titled "291 cm", which some who participate in the APUG/Photrio Postcard Exchange may recall.
The other print was an enlarged kallitype that I received from Andrew O'Neill. It is his wonderful image titled "Broken" - you can see it here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/broken.46882/
I don't recall whether ' Andrew used a digital or a film inter-negative to prepare the print I have, but in either case any loss in potential "resolution" wouldn't matter one bit. When looking at both prints together, one just wouldn't care about which one revealed more detail.

 

[StepheKoontz]

And that's what I'm asking. Film to paper is unique. But does it change from film, to scan, to paper?

Scanned B&W film does look very different from digital capture. I also have personally never seen a digitally printed B&W (ink/pigment) print that looks anywhere near as good as a silver based wet B&W print. I only scan negatives to share online with people.

 

[jtk]

Don't worry about how things "feel" to other people especially if they are afraid of digital.

Recognize that most of the preceding responses indicate superstition about digital and scan as well as ignorance about digital storage. I doubt any are personally skilled inkjet printers. None of them even attempted to directly respond to the OT.

It's true IMO that it's hard to match silver with digits but it's easy to do better with digits...

 

[Ariston]

Recognize that most of the preceding responses indicate superstition about digital and scan as well as ignorance about digital storage. I doubt any are personally skilled inkjet printers. None of them even attempted to directly respond to the OT.

It's true IMO that it's hard to match silver with digits but it's easy to do better with digits...

Did you just quote your own post?

 

[Ariston]

Did you just quote your own post?

Yes, he did.

 

[StepheKoontz]

It's true IMO that it's hard to match silver with digits but it's easy to do better with digits...

It depends on how you define "better". If I like the way an analog B&W print looks and that is the vision I want to create, cleaner, grainless, higher resolution etc isn't "better".

Did you just quote your own post?

LOL!

 

[radiant]

The digitally photographed shots of film really look different. In my case largest effect is caused by the lens I am using to photograph the negatives. It smooths out a bit and grain is therefore not so hard as it is when using scanner.

Is it good or bad? I prefer the look of shooting the film with digital camera than the output of the scanner. But this is about taste, what you are after etc. However making "contacts" with digital camera is now so super fast (compared to scanning), I think it takes about 5 seconds per frame for me so one uncut roll of 35mm film takes 3 minutes to shoot. I use XnView to invert + fix the levels and I'm basically done. I think scanning a roll takes about 20 minutes in my case.