Motivation Behind Shooting Color Film and Scanning

[Poisson Du Jour]

Then again, very few people have seen first class colour printing (either direct from neg/ transparency or scanned) from colour film origination, so to many digital looks 'better'.

Absolutely true!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Will someone explain the mindset behind color shooting film and scanning it. I get the feeling that most color film shooters are not making wet prints (or having wet prints made). Rather they are shooting film, having it processed and scanned (generally at below optimum resolution) at significant expense, posting it on social media, and having the occasional inkjet print made. Given the inherent quality compromises, what is the motivation? Why not just shoot digital? Is it just because it is trendy? The usual counter-culture leanings of youth? Given the demographics of the forum, perhaps the is the wrong place to ask, but maybe someone could take a stab at it.

Don't they have vinyl pressing factories in Nashville? Your question is similar to why vinyl instead of Apple Cloud.
I'm finding LP to be more valuable and handy.

Film scanning, color or BW, it's the same. It cost moderate price to get tiny Plustek scanner or cheap flatbed.
It is not complicated. At the same desk you could have letter sized inkjet printer with not expensive dw paper and not expensive pigment based archival inks. Those scanners and printer will cost same as entry level digital camera.
I see no quality issues with scans and prints. But I guess you need it on huge size prints in Nashville .

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Absolutely true!

I'm not so sure. First of all it is exApug. So, most of the members are familiar with film and prints from it.
Is OP new to this forum? It seems he is new to scanning and prints from it.

Second, it is forum theoretical talks. On practice Fred Herzog's prints from scans are recognized as the art.
I have his Modem Color book which is same, from scans. It is great. And right beside it I have Colton Allen photo zine via Blurb.
It is clearly film photography at its best. https://www.filmshooterscollective.com/contributors-1/colton-allen-4-13

 

[Bob Carnie]

A good friend of mine Dennis Tylee passed away two weeks ago. He and I ran fastball teams together for 16 years in the prime of our youth, He was my best friend at this time , confident and
catcher. We spent thousands of hours together playing ball This is why I keep using film and scanning . the two images of me were probably taken by Dennis , he is the guy with the black shirt on right image
and the center dude in full white uniform on the left image. These images were taken at a tournemnent in St Catherines Ontario probably 1988 era , and I could write a book about my 16 years experience with Denny and our team mates.
Dennis rest in peace my dear friend

 

[abruzzi]

I shoot 90% black and white, but sometimes you see a shot that needs color, so rather than carry a second camera just for color shots, I just have a second back with a color roll in it. I have a black and white darkroom, but i’d like eventually to do RA-4 too. Color is kind of new to me, so I’m still learning all the processes.

 

[MattKing]

A good friend of mine Dennis Tylee passed away two weeks ago.

Bob:
I'm sorry for your loss, and glad you have film to help you remember your friend.

 

[russell_w_b]

'Will someone explain the mindset behind color shooting film and scanning it.'

I suppose negs are robust-enough 'master images', provided they are stored correctly, which stand the test of time, and which may be handed down the generations relatively easily where they can be copied on whatever copying technology our children and grandchildren will be using. What do you leave your children and grandchildren otherwise? A box of discs or CF cards with TIFFs or JPGs on them, or some deliberately-hobbled format from the likes of Sony? A 'cloud' password and account details? Will they be able to read them? Even wet prints made on photographic paper fade over time, especially hanging in a sunny room.

Other than that, it's just the fun of using well-made old cameras and the technical simplicity of mixing a few chemicals at the kitchen sink, like some folks like to tinker with old radios, telephones (I do that as well) or cars. But scanning is necessary to show them to the wider world and, if one acquires a darkroom rather than a changing bag, the printing option is there too. It's 'win-win'!

 

[jtk]

I suppose negs are robust-enough 'master images', provided they are stored correctly, which stand the test of time, and which may be handed down the generations relatively easily where they can be copied on whatever copying technology our children and grandchildren will be using. What do you leave your children and grandchildren otherwise? A box of discs or CF cards with TIFFs or JPGs on them, or some deliberately-hobbled format from the likes of Sony? A 'cloud' password and account details? Will they be able to read them? Even wet prints made on photographic paper fade over time, especially hanging in a sunny room.

Other than that, it's just the fun of using well-made old cameras and the technical simplicity of mixing a few chemicals at the kitchen sink, like some folks like to tinker with old radios, telephones (I do that as well) or cars. But scanning is necessary to show them to the wider world and, if one acquires a darkroom rather than a changing bag, the printing option is there too. It's 'win-win'!

Many of us distribute multiple sets of prints to friends and family whenever we feel like it. That can reduce any concern about "estate" to nil. As well, many of us use cloud storage, which is as likely to be "archival" as any negative or print. One of the best things about digital techniques is that the print you just made can be replicated with near perfection by virtually anybody with basic computer and inkjet skills..and with certainty the data will be just as perfectly usable centuries from now, ...if the orange cockroaches have not wiped us out.

 

[SilverShutter]

I suppose the motivation behind shooting colour film and scanning is the same as with shooting black and white and scanning it. Except you want to have colour in your picture.
People make big distinctions as if shooting colour was perhaps less valid than B&W. At the end its an stylistic choice the photographer makes, you can also shoot black and white in digital, but many folks don't. Why? Because we enjoy the process. the cameras, and also with those same cameras we can use b&w and colour indistinctly.

 

[jtk]

If I had the latest digital M Leica I might stop shooting film entirely...as it is, I shoot 50% mirrorless partially because I like the way digital looks into shadows while keeping highlights. I can do that with B&W film/processing too, which is one reason I always keep an old SLR handy. The other reason is that I like machines more than tech. I do like Photoshop.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I shoot color and black & white film, then I print. No scanning going on here. I ditched the scanner when I was no longer compatible with the computer OS. I never replaced it and still do not miss it.

 

[Helge]

If I had the latest digital M Leica I might stop shooting film entirely...as it is, I shoot 50% mirrorless partially because I like the way digital looks into shadows while keeping highlights. I can do that with B&W film/processing too, which is one reason I always keep an old SLR handy. The other reason is that I like machines more than tech. I do like Photoshop.

Sounds like you don’t really “get” film if you are that easily swayed.
Expose for the shadows BTW and possibly use latensification if shadows are that important to you.

 

[REAndy]

Just being honest here, and just saying what works for me.

I shot b/w film, develop and print in my darkroom.

I only recently began to shoot color film. (of course "back-n-the-day" I shot color film, dropped it off at the local drug store and got my negs and prints in a few days, but that was then, and this is now) But like I was saying, I only recently began to shoot some color film again because I bought one of those C-41 chemical kits online and and wanted to gave it a try. And much to my surprise, I got good negatives! As a young man I was told how difficult it was to do color at home. About how you need precise temperature control, a river of water, and lots of equipment, and to forget about color printing because you'll run thru a box of paper before you get the filters right to get correct color on your prints. So, I avoided color in my darkroom.

But now, I've got some "new" color negatives (and a bunch of "old ones" from long ago) and so I got a scanner began to scanning them to my computer for ink-jet printing, and am happy with the output.

Making color prints in the darkroom is something I was never taught, never observed, and was told to forget. Perhaps it is only an "unknown scary thing" that I needlessly avoid?

 

[removed account4]

Dennis rest in peace my dear friend

bob, i am sorry for your loss. thanks for sharing your photographs of him
john

 

[removed account4]

Sounds like you don’t really “get” film if you are that easily swayed.
Expose for the shadows BTW and possibly use latensification if shadows are that important to you.

it really is nothing to "get" .. selenium intenisifaction is a drag
its one more chemical and proceedure to deal with... not to forget to mention, selenium is a nasty poison
and it makes me wonder with all the people using selenium to tone prints and "intensifying their film"
what they do with their waste ... dr house, the cranky brilliant tv know it all dr, doesn't live near me
so i can't drink the tea made from some bug larva to reverse the effects of selenium poisoning ...

its too bad people can't help but make swipes at people who just want to do their thing...
the guy wants to shoot what he wants and print stuff the way he wants isn't that he perogative?
and it would be equally as sad/lame if he made similar comments to you or anyone else who doesn't "get" digital
and how often times sensors work better in low light than film ...

==

 

[Bob Carnie]

Bob:
I'm sorry for your loss, and glad you have film to help you remember your friend.

Thanks Matt, I spent five hours yesterday putting together a pdf for his family, gathered from film I shot of the team, it was fantastic to look at the old contact sheets and relive some of the
memorys.

I think this pretty much sums up why I scan and print....

 

[Bob Carnie]

bob, i am sorry for your loss. thanks for sharing your photographs of him
john

thanks John , I am glad I had these negs stuck away in a box, they are now all scanned and easy for viewing

 

[Helge]

it really is nothing to "get" .. selenium intenisifaction is a drag
its one more chemical and proceedure to deal with... not to forget to mention, selenium is a nasty poison
and it makes me wonder with all the people using selenium to tone prints and "intensifying their film"
what they do with their waste ... dr house, the cranky brilliant tv know it all dr, doesn't live near me
so i can't drink the tea made from some bug larva to reverse the effects of selenium poisoning ...

its too bad people can't help but make swipes at people who just want to do their thing...
the guy wants to shoot what he wants and print stuff the way he wants isn't that he perogative?
and it would be equally as sad/lame if he made similar comments to you or anyone else who doesn't "get" digital
and how often times sensors work better in low light than film ...

==

Why do you use film sometimes then? Old habit?
I feel similar in this issue as I do with swingvoters.
If it takes that little to tip the scales, the knowledge and passionate emotions can’t really be there.

Despite “passion” being one of the most overused and misused words in recent history, I can’t come up with a better word right now for the fuel that needs to drive any kind of fruitful creative process in this realm.
Not made up, emulated and contrived passion. But one borne out of deep knowledge and appreciation for the particularities of the medium.

Film as a medium, as it is, on a positive rise from deaths door, doesn't need fence sitters, doubt and relativism.
It needs wholehearted support!

And how about flashing the film for that shadow detail? Either pre or post, or as I described in a recent post concurrent flashing.
The first two are as old as photography and will raise the detail level in shadows noticeably without lowering contrast too much. Concurrent flashing is done often with an uncounted lens or you can build your own powered flasher.

 

[jtk]

Why do you use film sometimes then? Old habit?
I feel similar in this issue as I do with swingvoters.
If it takes that little to tip the scales, the knowledge and passionate emotions can’t really be there.

Despite “passion” being one of the most overused and misused words in recent history, I can’t come up with a better word right now for the fuel that needs to drive any kind of fruitful creative process in this realm.
Not made up, emulated and contrived passion. But one borne out of deep knowledge and appreciation for the particularities of the medium.

Film as a medium, as it is, on a positive rise from deaths door, doesn't need fence sitters, doubt and relativism.
It needs wholehearted support!

And how about flashing the film for that shadow detail? Either pre or post, or as I described in a recent post concurrent flashing.
The first two are as old as photography and will raise the detail level in shadows noticeably without lowering contrast too much. Concurrent flashing is done often with and uncounted lens or you can build your own powered flasher.

Helge, pardon me..but I think you're far out of your depth. As well, you're very weak as a pretend "authority."

Film as a medium doesn't "need" anything whatsoever. My own experience with flashing includes Kodachrome II. Have you done that?

There's zero new about flashing...it was used for decades in motion pictures.

 

[removed account4]

Why do you use film sometimes then? Old habit?
I feel similar in this issue as I do with swingvoters.
If it takes that little to tip the scales, the knowledge and passionate emotions can’t really be there.

Despite “passion” being one of the most overused and misused words in recent history, I can’t come up with a better word right now for the fuel that needs to drive any kind of fruitful creative process in this realm.
Not made up, emulated and contrived passion. But one borne out of deep knowledge and appreciation for the particularities of the medium.

Film as a medium, as it is, on a positive rise from deaths door, doesn't need fence sitters, doubt and relativism.
It needs wholehearted support!

And how about flashing the film for that shadow detail? Either pre or post, or as I described in a recent post concurrent flashing.
The first two are as old as photography and will raise the detail level in shadows noticeably without lowering contrast too much. Concurrent flashing is done often with an uncounted lens or you can build your own powered flasher.

i do it because its fun and i like tinkering. at the moment i am involved with a project where i scan things make digital negatives and then print them
either in the dark or with sunlight. i do it cause i want to ( i hope i am allowed to say that )
don't get me wrong i use a digital camera all the time and i don't have a problem with it
even done the same sort of transference of new technology to old ..
not much of a swing voter i guess, or the right person to do the barometer with because im an equal opportunity film or sensor user.
as stated previously in the thread i shoot color and have not problem scanning it, black and white too, i also use the minilab operator down the street
she has a very good eye for color and has made beautiful prints large and small and ink jet ("archival") prints for me .. i like working with local people...
and i also process it in coffee developer when i have a format that she can't process ( bigger than 35m ) mainly because i have about 40# of green coffee beans
in my garage that i have to use up ... and because i don't want to deal with the added expense of shipping film to someone and having them charge me 10 or 50$ to process it..

im aware of film and paper flashing, and have done it .. but latent image intensification is best done with selenium as mentioned
but if you can use a digitgal camera and do the exact same thing with no effort at all, i don't really see the point of extra work extra chemicals and in the end
shipping film out to a lab out of state that will send me a bill. ( btw i use a 10+ year old nikon dslr that works great and a 13+ year old scanner that works great and a 5?+ year old phone that works great
i don't believe in the upgrade cycle ... )
have fun!

 

[Helge]

Helge, pardon me..but I think you're far out of your depth. As well, you're very weak as a pretend "authority."

Film as a medium doesn't "need" anything whatsoever. My own experience with flashing includes Kodachrome II. Have you done that?

There's zero new about flashing...it was used for decades in motion pictures.

How would you know anything about my authority or depth?
I’m laying out some facts. Like them or leave them.
Where am I purporting to be an authority?

Film to survive as a great and vital medium needs users and customers simple as that.

Flashing, as I said, is old, works and is quite easy to do in any of it's variations.
Flashing for slide would be... interesting. Especially considering the narrow range. With flashing you are basically exchanging dynamics for sensitivity (especially combined with a push). A bit like raising gain on a sensor.

 

[Helge]

i do it because its fun and i like tinkering. at the moment i am involved with a project where i scan things make digital negatives and then print them
either in the dark or with sunlight. i do it cause i want to ( i hope i am allowed to say that )
don't get me wrong i use a digital camera all the time and i don't have a problem with it
even done the same sort of transference of new technology to old ..
not much of a swing voter i guess, or the right person to do the barometer with because im an equal opportunity film or sensor user.
as stated previously in the thread i shoot color and have not problem scanning it, black and white too, i also use the minilab operator down the street
she has a very good eye for color and has made beautiful prints large and small and ink jet ("archival") prints for me .. i like working with local people...
and i also process it in coffee developer when i have a format that she can't process ( bigger than 35m ) mainly because i have about 40# of green coffee beans
in my garage that i have to use up ... and because i don't want to deal with the added expense of shipping film to someone and having them charge me 10 or 50$ to process it..

im aware of film and paper flashing, and have done it .. but latent image intensification is best done with selenium as mentioned
but if you can use a digitgal camera and do the exact same thing with no effort at all, i don't really see the point of extra work extra chemicals and in the end
shipping film out to a lab out of state that will send me a bill. ( btw i use a 10+ year old nikon dslr that works great and a 13+ year old scanner that works great and a 5?+ year old phone that works great
i don't believe in the upgrade cycle ... )
have fun!

This is exactly in line with my previous grievance in this thread.
If you only do film for its novelty and the process, chances are you and everybody else will tire of it at some point, or forget it entirely.
Sure, it’s fun and tactile and a process with long historic roots and all that. That is true and has been true as long as there has been analog photography.
But, film has some important hard technical advantages that if you don’t have a good enough scanner, or prowess in darkroom printing or know someone who does, you will never really see those advantages.
You will perhaps notice some quaint differences on your screen, but will attribute them to how “analogue” and retro and “charmingly inaccurate” film is.
When instead you have just grown accustomed to whole new set of artifacts and idiosyncrasies of the new digital medium, and now regard those as “normal”.

 

[removed account4]

This is exactly in line with my previous grievance in this thread.
If you only do film for its novelty and the process, chances are you and everybody else will tire of it at some point, or forget it entirely.
Sure, it’s fun and tactile and a process with long historic roots and all that. That is true and has been true as long as there has been analog photography.
But, film has some important hard technical advantages that if you don’t have a good enough scanner, or prowess in darkroom printing or know someone who does, you will never really see those advantages.
You will perhaps notice some quaint differences on your screen, but will attribute them to how “analogue” and retro and “charmingly inaccurate” film is.
When instead you have just grown accustomed to whole new set of artifacts and idiosyncrasies of the new digital medium, and now regard those as “normal”.

sorry i don't give a crap about charmingness or accuracy film or digital has never been charming or accurate
and not really sure where novelty has come into this. i have been using film since like IDK 1970?
i don't care about historic roots or any of the BS that most people who go on and on with their typical BS about
why one thing is more important than the other, like an actual artifact of the nanosecond .. whatever...
none of that matters to me. i use film and i use digital
i scan film and i print film ... nothing quaint in anything that i am doing ... LOL
i also make emulsion from scratch have been coating glass plates since about IDK 1986 or 7? and been using
experimental "methods" since about the same time, been shooting for $$ since about the same time..
i have no orthodoxy, and people who have some sort of orthodoxy and " you are wrong because you don't do this" kind of
get on my nerves for one reason or another. .. their arguments make no sense, sorry.
too many people are caught in a bear trap and can't get out of it. people
who LOVE DIGITAL are caught in the HATE ANALOG bear trap and
the LOVE ANALOG are caught in the HATE DIGITAL trap ... jealousy and hate are terrible things.
they don't realize they have more in common than they are different
and its too bad because the way they think ruins it for everyone else...

there really is no golden child, no idol to worship. its too bad people have to
create all sorts of nonsense to prove to everyone else their methods are better.
just do what you want and let others do what they want...

film and digital idiosyncrasies artifacts? sorry i don't even pay attention to artifacts or idiosyncrasies ...

BTW
for film to survive there has to be a viable place for regular people to send it in to be procesed
kodak and others have made it diffcult for regular people to have their film developed since in the past 15 years
they de-constructed the film processing infrastructure that had existed for 100 years.
it has nothing to do with artifacts and idiosyncrasies .. but a place to get film processed... bring that
back and make it evident it is available people will start using film again. no place to get it processed, no film is sold...
its not that hard to figure out...

 

[jtk]

sorry i don't give a crap about charmingness or accuracy film or digital has never been charming or accurate
and not really sure where novelty has come into this. i have been using film since like IDK 1970?
i don't care about historic roots or any of the BS that most people who go on and on with their BS about
why one thing is more important than the other.
none of that matters to me. i use film and i use digital
i scan film and i print film ... nothing quaint in anything that i am doing ... LOL
i also make emulsion from scratch have been coating glass plates since about IDK 1986 or 7? and been using
experimental "methods" since about the same time, been shooting for $$ since about the same time..
i have no orthodoxy, and people who have some sort of orthodoxy and " you are wrong because you don't do this" kind of
get on my nerves for one reason or another. .. their arguments make no sense, sorry.
too many people are caught in a bear trap and can't get out of it. people
who LOVE DIGITAL are caught in the HATE ANALOG bear trap and
the LOVE ANALOG are caught in the HATE DIGITAL trap ... jealousy and hate are terrible things.
they don't realize they have more in common than they are different
and its too bad because the way they think ruins it for everyone else...

there really is no golden child, no idol to worship. its too bad people have to
create all sorts of nonsense to prove to everyone else their methods are better.
just do what you want and let others do what they want...

film and digital idiosyncrasies artifacts? sorry i don't even pay attention to artifacts or idiosyncrasies ...

BTW
for film to survive there has to be a viable place for regular people to send it in to be procesed
kodak and others have made it diffcult for regular people to have their film developed since in the past 15 years
they de-constructed the film processing infrastructure that had existed for 100 years.
it has nothing to do with artifacts and idiosyncrasies .. but a place to get film processed... bring that
back and make it evident it is available people will start using film again. no place to get it processed, no film is sold...
its not that hard to figure out...

That "regular people" actually exist somewhere is an interesting idea... Nonetheless, I agree with most of what you (Jnanian) said, especially about infrastructure. Except of course that incredible color accuracy is something many of us, including Kodak's own Ektachrome labs, have achieved thanks to our long-lost Kodak Girl for many decades.

 

[jtk]

This is exactly in line with my previous grievance in this thread.
If you only do film for its novelty and the process, chances are you and everybody else will tire of it at some point, or forget it entirely.
Sure, it’s fun and tactile and a process with long historic roots and all that. That is true and has been true as long as there has been analog photography.
But, film has some important hard technical advantages that if you don’t have a good enough scanner, or prowess in darkroom printing or know someone who does, you will never really see those advantages.
You will perhaps notice some quaint differences on your screen, but will attribute them to how “analogue” and retro and “charmingly inaccurate” film is.
When instead you have just grown accustomed to whole new set of artifacts and idiosyncrasies of the new digital medium, and now regard those as “normal”.

Helge, I doubt anyone recognizes the authority you assume. Many do actually have excellent scanners and darkroom prowess or access to people who do. If someone didn't have prowess or tools or resource people, that would be like not having electricity or automotive mechanics. It's optional. Life in the fast lane.