As someone who teaches darkroom photography, we routinely have full classes of people at all age ranges wanting to learn not only film developing, but printing and enlarging. Not 20-30 students at a time, for sure, but 8-10, which is pushing the limits of our darkroom (we have 13 enlarger stations all told). Our Sunday open darkroom rental is also very popular. So the interest in film photography is definitely there.
That's IF you can find proper interneg film. Which, not incidentally, will create its own age-related problem within about 5 years.
I still shoot Velvia 50. Thirty-five years ago I had outside lab make me 16x20" prints from 6x7 medium format 120 Velvia 50 and other chromes. They used a 4x5 internegative to produce the prints chemically.
How does Velvia 50 drum scanning and RA-4 and laser exposing/printing hold up today?
Just wondering: why don't you edit those snaps, then discarding the junque, rather than scanning everything? IMO that's the respectful thing to do for family.
If it's worth scanning/copyinv, surely it's worth printing.
A very good friend of mine is doing that regularly: Selecting his 3-4 recent favourite Velvia 50 or Provia 100F shots, drum-scanning them on a Heidelberg Tango drumscanner, sending the files to an excellent lab who is exposing the photos on Fuji RA-4 silver-halide photo paper (in his case mostly the lab 'White Wall'), and then hanging the huge prints (mostly more than 1 meter long) on the walls in his home.
Because I wanted to have everything scanned. What might be junk, might have a purpose later. For example, as part of my job many years ago I used to shoot lots of job site photos that helped when I got back to the office to work on design. While ephemeral at the time, many have ended up as subject matter in my artwork years later.
And why would scanning everything be disrespectful to family?
Is he also projecting? I am trying to understand the rationale for not using print film if the final goal is a print?
Is he also projecting? I am trying to understand the rationale for not using print film if the final goal is a print?
Yes, he is also projecting. But for the huge prints he prefers the superior sharpness and resolution of Velvia 50 and Provia 100F compared to CN film. And he also prefers the amzing colours of these two positive films.
For the same reasons I prefer Velvia and Provia for my "wall prints", too, by the way. Especially for my landscape photos.
And of course projection and prints are not at all an "either-or" choice! It is an "and". You can have easily both with positive film. One of its numerous advantages.
Some pictures you just want to have on the wall.
Best regards,
Henning
@Henning Serger and @Sirius Glass the reason I asked is because a few weeks ago, I posted a question to the "Color" sub-forum asking:
Not a lot of people commented, but the general consensus was that print film should have more accurate color reproduction and the grain is a function of film speed, regardless of either it's slide or print.
- How can slide film be competitive to print film in terms of color quality, if it does not utilize the mask to cancel off cross-layer contamination?
- How can slide film have finer grain than print film of the same ISO speed?
I was just curious.
Define “cheap” and why that is a requirement.
I would add fast to that list of attributes. I mainly camera-scan my negatives; it is not simple and not cheap (unless you have much of the equipment already) but the results are good and it is really fast - I can do a 36 exp roll of 35mm in just a few minutes.
It is the lack of speed that has kept me doing this slightly complicated process instead of trying dedicated scanner options; none of them approach this sort of speed.
Why cheap monochrome sensor and RGB backlight? Wouldn't a color sensor be better?I’d say around a $1000 is realistic and attainable. And about the max of what you could have Joe(anne)-average film shooter consider putting down to save on expensive bad lab scans and have much more control.
$500 would be ideal but would probably eat too much into profit margin for anyone to be willing to try it.
And cheap because Flextight prices is not an option if film is going to prosper. And the current scanners are just terrible and woefully misrepresents film. Pieter could become right solely on account of bad scanning.
A good multi macro stitch scan will forever and instantly turn you off any kind of traditional scanner and gives you a taste of what is possible.
Imagine an integrated machine where all the fat is cut off. No batteries or screen. No lens mount or Bayer filtered full frame sensor.
Just a simple fixed height, high pitch small and cheap monochrome sensor, RGB backlight and a small but sharp lens in front.
Wouldn’t even have to be an achromat lens. Colour fringing could be auto corrected in software easily.
Fast is part of simple in my world.
Why cheap monochrome sensor and RGB backlight? Wouldn't a color sensor be better?
Why couldn't they update flat beds scanners? It's been 10-15 years. Aren't there better sensors today that have higher dMax and resolution?
I'm young enough (38) to have gotten serious about photography as a hobby in the digital era, though I had film cameras (point and shoots) as a kid and young adult.1. Sadly dark room printing is not as much a part of the resurgence as the film and scanning part.
Printing images is simply not a part of peoples mindset today. Most people wouldn’t know what to do with a print. “Hang it on the wall”? “That’s for posters or paintings”.
But even then, dark room printing is coming back. Albeit at a slower pace.
Which is understandable as it’s an another step and another tier of cost. And worst of all, requires space and planning.
I’ve had dark room equipment snatched under my nose multiple times because I thought I had time to think it over or saw it too late.
Just a few weeks ago, a Microsight focuser was bought in a thrift market seconds before I had a chance to pick it up.
And the guy who bought it clearly knew how lucky he was (I asked him).
@Henning Serger and @Sirius Glass the reason I asked is because a few weeks ago, I posted a question to the "Color" sub-forum:
Not a lot of people commented, but the general consensus was that print film should have more accurate color reproduction and the grain is a function of film speed, regardless of either it's slide or print.
- How can slide film be competitive to print film in terms of color quality, if it does not utilize the mask to cancel off cross-layer contamination?
- How can slide film have finer grain than print film of the same ISO speed?
I was just curious about slides in general. My personal experience with transparencies has been mixed, because I've never done my own E6 at home, and I've been quite unlucky with the labs.
To answer the question of the original poster:
Yes, there is definitely a really strong interest and increasing demand for film.
During the last years I have travelled much (because of my job and also for private reasons), to different countrys and continents.
And at my destinations I have always looked for local labs and (used) camera shops. Talked to the staff there and discussed the situation.
And in all cases (with no exceptions), on all locations around the world, the staff in the labs and shops reported a strong film revival and increasing demand.
Henning: How is it that there's extremely low contrast? I thought Velvia was high and often you can;t see the shadows area details. :
"And with Velvia 50 and Velvia 100 we have in addition the unique characteristic and advantage that they are delivering a superior, unsurpassed resolution already at extremely low object contrast (1.6:1) with 80-85 lp/mm. No other colour film is offering that, especially no colour negative film."
Just use the film and a certain colour rendition which fits your subject and your creative idea. Use what you like.
And don't care too much for theoretical or technical concepts.
Color reversal film generally has a bit finer grain (and higher resolution and better sharpness) than color negative film of the same speed. The main reason is the reversal process: When the film is exposed, mainly the larger silver-halide crystal are exposed. And in the reversal process these are removed, and the finer/smaller crystals remain forming the final positive picture.
Henning, thank you.
Again, I understand that color accuracy is not always the goal. But as an always-curious-about-everything engineer, I continue to wonder what kind of a workaround is used to deal with impure dyes in transparencies...
I guess that helps Velvia "pop".
@Henning Serger and @Sirius Glass the reason I asked is because a few weeks ago, I posted a question to the "Color" sub-forum:
Not a lot of people commented, but the general consensus was that print film should have more accurate color reproduction and the grain is a function of film speed, regardless of either it's slideor print.
- How can slide film be competitive to print film in terms of color quality, if it does not utilize the mask to cancel off cross-layer contamination?
- How can slide film have finer grain than print film of the same ISO speed?
I was just curious about slides in general. My personal experience with transparencies has been mixed, because I've never done my own E6 at home, and I've been quite unlucky with the labs.
@Henning Serger and @Sirius Glass the reason I asked is because a few weeks ago, I posted a question to the "Color" sub-forum:
Not a lot of people commented, but the general consensus was that print film should have more accurate color reproduction and the grain is a function of film speed, regardless of either it's slide or print.
- How can slide film be competitive to print film in terms of color quality, if it does not utilize the mask to cancel off cross-layer contamination?
- How can slide film have finer grain than print film of the same ISO speed?
I was just curious about slides in general. My personal experience with transparencies has been mixed, because I've never done my own E6 at home, and I've been quite unlucky with the labs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?