35mm Scans VS FF digital

ChristopherCoy

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
3,599
Location
On a boat.
Format
Multi Format
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

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
4,971
Location
Glasgow
Format
Multi Format
ChristopherCoy said:
Why would someone prefer to start with a scanned digital file, instead of a straight digital file?
Click to expand...

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

cjbecker

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,397
Location
IN
Format
Traditional
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.
 
OP
OP

ChristopherCoy

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
3,599
Location
On a boat.
Format
Multi Format
jtk said:
#1 dust #2 focus #3 deficiencies in original film #3 shorter tonal scale inherent in film Vs raw.
Click to expand...

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

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,617
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
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".
 
OP
OP

ChristopherCoy

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
3,599
Location
On a boat.
Format
Multi Format
cjbecker said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
OP
OP

ChristopherCoy

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
3,599
Location
On a boat.
Format
Multi Format
MattKing said:
The most important word in what I've written here is "prefer".
Click to expand...

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

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,617
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
ChristopherCoy said:
BUT, I'm not sure if I need that Nikon F5 to go along with my D700's or not.
Click to expand...
Something smaller than an F5 might preserve the options in a more usable package.
I remain a proponent of projecting slide film.
 
OP
OP

ChristopherCoy

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
3,599
Location
On a boat.
Format
Multi Format
MattKing said:
Something smaller than an F5 might preserve the options in a more usable package.
I remain a proponent of projecting slide film.
Click to expand...

Like the yaschica rangefinder I have in storage?
 

jim10219

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2017
Messages
1,632
Location
Oklahoma
Format
4x5 Format
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.
 
OP
OP

ChristopherCoy

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
3,599
Location
On a boat.
Format
Multi Format

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

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
801
Location
Doraville
Format
Medium Format
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.
 
OP
OP

ChristopherCoy

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
3,599
Location
On a boat.
Format
Multi Format


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

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,617
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,617
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
ChristopherCoy said:
And that's what I'm asking. Film to paper is unique. But does it change from film, to scan, to paper?
Click to expand...
Yes - because the intervening digital negatives have much less resolution than film.
 
OP
OP

ChristopherCoy

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
3,599
Location
On a boat.
Format
Multi Format
MattKing said:
Yes - because the intervening digital negatives have much less resolution than film.
Click to expand...

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

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,617
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

StepheKoontz

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
801
Location
Doraville
Format
Medium Format
ChristopherCoy said:
And that's what I'm asking. Film to paper is unique. But does it change from film, to scan, to paper?
Click to expand...

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

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
4,943
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Format
35mm
jtk said:
Don't worry about how things "feel" to other people especially if they are afraid of digital.
Click to expand...

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

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
1,658
Location
Atlanta
Format
Multi Format
Did you just quote your own post?
 

StepheKoontz

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
801
Location
Doraville
Format
Medium Format
jtk said:
It's true IMO that it's hard to match silver with digits but it's easy to do better with digits...
Click to expand...
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".

Ariston said:
Did you just quote your own post?
Click to expand...

LOL!
 

radiant

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
2,135
Location
Europe
Format
Hybrid
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…