Motivation Behind Shooting Color Film and Scanning

[removed account4]

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.

kodak was a photofinishing company that sold supplies to get photofinished
and when they shuttered their labs it was the beginning of the end...
if they open labs again people wouldn't be arguing about this nonsense anymore ...
("opening labs" might mean partner with existing labs that can take additional volume .. )
all this new color film is great but no place to process it ( as i have been saying for IDK 10+ years ) is not great ... its a drag for people who shoot
the film and have no clue how or where to get it processed and unfortunately they go online and read
crap about processing it in their kitchen sink and other baloney ...
open labs and sell films ... its really not that hard ...

 

[jtk]

kodak was a photofinishing company that sold supplies to get photofinished
and when they shuttered their labs it was the beginning of the end...
if they open labs again people wouldn't be arguing about this nonsense anymore ...
("opening labs" might mean partner with existing labs that can take additional volume .. )
all this new color film is great but no place to process it ( as i have been saying for IDK 10+ years ) is not great ... its a drag for people who shoot
the film and have no clue how or where to get it processed and unfortunately they go online and read
crap about processing it in their kitchen sink and other baloney ...
open labs and sell films ... its really not that hard ...

Actually it'd be a lot harder than one might think. Kodak's big labs were astoundingly well managed. In addition to financing and building new labs, new managers would have to be invented out of thin air. New factory workers would have to be invented and seasoned. Those places were factories, not boutique operations. All gone. George Eastman had it right. Game over.

 

[removed account4]

fuji labs is still around, but no one knows they can drop offs for them anymore.
maybe a 1st step is making it known that you can DROP FILM OFF TO BE PROCESSED.
( and make sure the lab returns the negatives instead of destroying them ) ?
there are probably labs locally people can use, ... maybe kodak lets people know where they can bring their film locally?
doesn't need ot be big things like build a national processing center, but grass roots and re-establising what is already there.
seems l ike a no brainer to me but i guess with a heavy case of " gee wiz we are making more film .. they'll know what to do with it" group-think
you need someone to mention " gee wiz there are no labs left since the collapse of the film industry 10 years ago "
seeing most of the people involved never used film or forgot you needed to drop it off at a lab...

 

[russell_w_b]

'.if the orange cockroaches have not wiped us out...'

It's not so much the orange cockroaches (who would probably devour negatives too); more the longevity of file types and protocols, which constantly change or are superseded. That said, I'm pretty confident someone will always be able to provide reverse compatability, should it be needed, to mate up with whatever is future.

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.

Good plan. Here's the paradox: In general, as more and more people have the means to take better and better digital photographs, they're valued less and less, and this is reflected in the way they're archived. Ever spent a frustrating half-an-hour looking for that photograph 'you know is there somewhere' and wishing you'd archived it or remembered which HDD it is on? I have. I tag all my images now and am (very) slowly working back in those spare moments to tag them all. Manana...

​

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You could make a old-fashioned photo album, or new type coffee table book or do what I do which is a slideshow with music and then burn a DVD which I give out to family members.

 

[jtk]

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.

 

[jtk]

Perhaps you're unaware of effectiveness of slide flashing by people who actually do it, or unaware of Bowens Illumitran, pin registration, or skilled people.

"Facts" is a dangerous word to use if one is lite.

 

[russell_w_b]

You could make a old-fashioned photo album, or new type coffee table book or do what I do which is a slideshow with music and then burn a DVD which I give out to family members.

I've taken many photographs of the people and sites I've worked with and at over the past thirty-five years, mostly on 35mm slides. I scanned them and made them into DVDs which I've given out to retiring members of staff (as if they want to be reminded! ).

 

[Helge]

Perhaps you're unaware of effectiveness of slide flashing by people who actually do it, or unaware of Bowens Illumitran, pin registration, or skilled people.

"Facts" is a dangerous word to use if one is lite.

I'm very aware of the Illumitran (and Gerry Turpins Flex which employs a similar device for contrast control and live/concurrent flashing in cine footage). I believe I linked to it in my recent thread too for proof.
I don't see what it and pin registration has to do, directly, with taking original photos?

As far as I know, no-one has been able to pin down flashing to an exact science. People seem to rely on rules of thumb and hunches. Therefore it would seem more difficult, with a higher chance of duds with slide film.
I have no doubt that it is possible and that it would work though.

If I hadn't read your other posts you'd seem "lite", since no-one is more concerned with intellectual status and authority than people who lack it, and you keep harping on about it.

Tell me where I have my supposed facts wrong.

 

[jtk]

I'm very aware of the Illumitran (and Gerry Turpins Flex which employs a similar device for contrast control and live/concurrent flashing in cine footage). I believe I linked to it in my recent thread too for proof.
I don't see what it and pin registration has to do, directly, with taking original photos?

As far as I know, no-one has been able to pin down flashing to an exact science. People seem to rely on rules of thumb and hunches. Therefore it would seem more difficult, with a higher chance of duds with slide film.
I have no doubt that it is possible and that it would work though.

If I hadn't read your other posts you'd seem "lite", since no-one is more concerned with intellectual status and authority than people who lack it, and you keep harping on about.

Tell me where I have my supposed facts wrong.

I suggest you choose concepts rather than "facts" when expressing your concerns. I don't doubt your "intellectual" capacity, just the way you employ whatever it happens to be.

Nothing in photography is an "exact science." Use of that phrase is a wiggle. However description of visual color (colour) in CC (color compensation) units can come amazingly close to exactitude when employed by skilled film photographers and lab technicians.

fyi pin registration allows tremendous adjustment of contrast, both up and down as well as local. Happily Photoshop does that too.

 

[Helge]

I suggest you choose concepts rather than "facts" when expressing your concerns. I don't doubt your "intellectual" capacity, just the way you employ whatever it happens to be.

Nothing in photography is an "exact science." Use of that phrase is a wiggle. However description of visual color (colour) in CC (color compensation) units can come amazingly close to exactitude when employed by skilled film photographers and lab technicians.

fyi pin registration allows tremendous adjustment of contrast, both up and down as well as local. Happily Photoshop does that too.

Mathematical models predicts some things with regard to film photography with a reasonable amount of precision. That is what is usually meant by exactitude in science.
You could make models for a lot things, but sometimes people just haven't found out how or haven't bothered.

I needn't tell you that any amount of darkroom work will fail recover shadow details that isn't already on the film. That was the question to begin with, AFAIK.

"Concepts" would be wrong. That is a fact. ;-)
There wasn't anything controversial in what I said, whether you prefer it as facts or concepts.
Do you want me to go real lowbro troll internet comment speak, and make me explicitly state that anything I write is "only my opinion"?
Would you prefer we only discussed your opinion?

 

[sixby45]

I do this more and more with C-41 and for me it is about the color and 3d look that I can't replicate easily with my digital bodies. Each has their place to be sure by when I have the time I prefer the hybrid approach more and more.

 

[jtk]

Mathematical models predicts some things with regard to film photography with a reasonable amount of precision. That is what is usually meant by exactitude in science.
You could make models for a lot things, but sometimes people just haven't found out how or haven't bothered.

I needn't tell you that any amount of darkroom work will fail recover shadow details that isn't already on the film. That was the question to begin with, AFAIK.

"Concepts" would be wrong. That is a fact. ;-)
There wasn't anything controversial in what I said, whether you prefer it as facts or concepts.
Do you want me to go real lowbro troll internet comment speak, and make me explicitly state that anything I write is "only my opinion"?
Would you prefer we only discussed your opinion?

I probably know what you're attempting to say, however I doubt you can apply mathematical "exacticude" to color in photography unless you are skillful with Color Compensating Units and appropriate filtration. I'm pretty good at that, some color darkroom professionals are very good at it, but if you line up three of the best (as I once did) you will find that they differ. Are you an expert with Color Compensating Units?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Color film has much better dynamic range than a digital sensor. If you blowout highlights on a color neg, there's more density to recover detail. Digital sensors aren't that forgiving.

 

[removed account4]

Do you want me to go real lowbro troll internet comment speak, and make me explicitly state that anything I write is "only my opinion"?
Would you prefer we only discussed your opinion?

i thought it was just an regular benign internet conversation
before it went all code brown ..

 

[jtk]

Color film has much better dynamic range than a digital sensor. If you blowout highlights on a color neg, there's more density to recover detail. Digital sensors aren't that forgiving.

That's a popular error for two reasons. First, one is unlikely to "blow out highlights" with normal use of digital cameras (assuming we're not talking about primative point and shoots), second it's amazing what you can find at the extremes of highlights with Lightroom or other spins on Photoshop. In fact, scans of ancient Kodachromes (for example) can find interest in highlights that could never be reproduced without digital techniques.

 

[removed account4]

Color film has much better dynamic range than a digital sensor. If you blowout highlights on a color neg, there's more density to recover detail. Digital sensors aren't that forgiving.

couldn't agree more .. sensor dynamic range is more like chromes than CN film unless it is all layered blast exposures photoshop et al. and post processing mumbo jumbo..
for the past IDK 10 years imy motivation is processing CN film ( and chrome ) in black and white developer and getting great fun results. not full color, unless i use RGB filters
and make a nouveau tri chrome, but still a lot of fun. nothing like removing the orange mask and seeing whats underneath or making a contact print from what looks to be a mess.

 

[TSSPro]

I started working with studios when it was all film, learned to retouch and digitize when hybrid was the way, and eventually, when everything went digital, got to play with $40k digital backs and see how much you could do with a pure digital work flow. Digitizing color film was my personal work-around. I didn't (still don't) have $40 lying around for a digital back, let alone a new camera system, but I do have my tried and true Bronicas, Sinars, Nikons, Blads, etc. Film, processing, and desktop scanners have been much cheaper alternatives while still achieving massive digital file size for whatever photoshop magic you had in store.

Don't get me wrong- I love an optical workflow- had a color darkroom at my disposal for years with a giant roller-transport processor and enlargers big and small. "The only thing easier than printing color is eating popcorn." was a phrase that got uttered more than once. When all of that was no more I couldn't personally invest in re-making a color darkroom like that in each new place that I lived. Desktop scanners and a new monitor were much easier to haul around the country.

It's still very much a cost-benefit balance, for me. With Fuji's new medium format digital options I've seriously considered investing in a digital system, but still can't justify the cost. Soooo... for now, and the foreseeable future, I'm sticking with what I know.

 

[John51]

I like the 6x9 format. A roll of 120 slide film lab processed and scanned for 18Mb images costs about £11.50. Including film, that's over £2 a shot. The price alone slows me down and makes me think first which is not a bad thing. If I chimp away with a digi and get 300+ images in an afternoon, what value my time wading through them and doing adjustments to any keepers in PS? 3 hours of minimum wage work gets me my £20 back. I don't shoot more than 2 rolls of colour a month so it's affordable to me.

The slides get cut and stored in acid free baseball card sleeves. Family get to look at the pics on a 5"x4" lightbox and the Wow factor is huge compared to seeing pics on a phone or even a monitor. If they want prints, I already have the files.

Also, I'm not experienced with PS. I know that it's possible, if you're an expert, to have a digi image give the same look as say Velvia 50, Provia 100 or Portra 160 but why should I bother when all I've got to do is load the appropriate film for the look I want?

 

[warden]

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.

Color photography in general is less interesting to me than black and white. (I mean my own color work, not color photography in general.) I do my own processing and wet printing for b&w and that is a rewarding avocation. I print little b&w, just the family keepers and scenes from around town. I scan/share more than I print/keep and I'm happy with what I share.

I also process my own C41 and E6, but have no way to print them other than outsourcing, which I've done with exactly one image. Everything else is scanned for my enjoyment (C-41) or just kept to enjoy on the light table (E6). When I share color images I'm often less than thrilled with the color.

Color is easy to develop but for me difficult to scan successfully, and I agree with your premise that in my case anyway there are quality compromises because despite years of practice with scanning I can't match the outstanding color and quality that a decent digital camera can produce with far less effort.

So with b&w I don't think I'm missing anything by using film, but with color I do. If I had an important project that had to be color I'd rent a digital camera.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

When I was an undergrad back in the 80's I got a lot of color neg and part of my training was printing on type C material. I got pretty good at it but I haven't printed in color other than through ink jet printers. I love the look of a C print and hope when I retire, I could make optical prints from color negs. It's really time-consuming and I have a feeling that I'll be using drums instead of dry to dry print processor.

 

[Roger Wade]

I guess there are several reasons for me.

I learnt how to take photos before the advent of digital. The skill set is different. I don't know how to use digital cameras effectively. It would require a lot of work for me to relearn and I have no interest.

I have great analogue equipment and can't afford to go digital. I own some iconic cameras (e.g Rolleiflex 2.8f) that produce negatives that would require a huge investment for anything like approaching that quality in digital.

I don't want to spend hours in front of a computer. I like to do my thinking before hand re composition, framing, lighting and generally consider whether I even want to take a photo. Is this photo going to make me or someone else happy? If not, don't do it. The temptation with digital is to shoot off hundred of images and see what comes out. I put in more energy and creative impulse before the act, take a handful of pics (limited obviously by the medium anyway), perhaps tweak a little either digitally or optically and that's it.

I guess I like the tactile nature of things. Vinyl, books, pens and paper - it slows me down and makes me be more deliberate. Life is so fast nowadays, taking a breath and thinking can be relaxing and rewarding. My daughter (13) now uses a Holga and a Lubitel 6x6 for photos. She thinks about it, wanders around and considers what to use her precious 120 film on. Got to be good in my book. Most girls take hundreds of pointless selfies, constantly, without thinking. It's what you do.

I don't do professional work for others e.g.weddings. I clearly see the demand from the customer for digital here but again, no interest.

I have several friends who have great and expensive digital equipment but have no idea how to make photos. Their photos are without expression, art and are, dare I say, pointless. Purely fixing that moment in time. Which can be done and is done all the time, every second by millions of people using their smartphones. Why bother. It doesn't have to be this way with digital, obviously, but it is what I have observed.

And I prefer the look of film. To my eyes, it looks different. It looks warm and inviting. Like a good book. But then again I prefer vinyl to streams..... Sounding on again Grandad ;-)

There is room for all. Just do what makes you happy.

R

 

[LambentTyto]

I was born in 88 and by the time I even had any interest in photography film didn't even enter into my mind, so of course I was using digital. It's just a hobby for me. Anyway, I checked my digital collection of photos that I've taken over the last couple years and came to the realization that out of slightly more than a thousand photos, only sixty or seventy I felt merited showing via social media such as Instagram. The rest are basically just snapshots of this or that, things you send over instant messaging real quick, but nothing to get too excited about.

Another thing I also realized, is that when I took photos of my subject, I would general take dozens of shots, only to later realize the first one I had taken, the one I spent more time on, was nearly invariably the best out of the bunch. To go further, I also realized that sitting down with other people and passing about physical photographs is quite a lot of fun compared to passing about a smart phone. Now, granted, anyone can have any of their digital photos printed, but after seeing it on the screen, I've never felt any inclination whatsoever to have them printed. Clearly this is how I feel personally. It's my opinion, so I'm not making any judgement against digital, but for me, they just don't hold the same value.

For my personal needs, I feel that film is much more exciting. That, and I just picked up a small haul of cameras in good condition for a really nice deal from an old war veteran no longer interested in photography. I haven't actually had the opportunity to use them yet, as I'm currently living in Ecuador and they don't seem to sell film down here and I highly doubt they develop. But that's okay, I'm moving to Europe very soon anyway.

 

[sperera]

I shoot film for commercial purposes (I am a graphic designer and photographer) thus I scan it all myself.....have a Scanmate 5000 and a Hasselblad 646 scanner the latter being the one I use now as I can run it on modern Mac with adapters (Firewire 400 to 800 to Thunderbolt)

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.