Pros and cons of different ways of shooting colour?

[Carriage]

Currently I frequently shoot black and white film on a pentax spotmatic but also have a nikon d3300 though do not shoot much colour. Recently I've been thinking about doing more colour photography and am trying to work out my best option in terms of cost and control. With my black and white I do my own enlarging so have control over the whole process.

Options for colour I've thought of are:
Digital - "properly" with calibration etc
Pros: Not many ongoing costs
Good quality
Cons: Largish upfront cost - monitor calibrator, perhaps new monitor/PC, if I want a film look then money for lightroom and presets (and it won't quite be the same)

Digital - Cheaply using free software and not calibrating my monitor
Pros: No cost
Cons: Less control over final output
More effort in working out how to post process a look I like. Film shots tend to look nicer/more saturated straight out of the camera, though I'm not married to either look.

Hybrid - Slide film + scanning
Pros: Slide film looks good (apparently from what I've seen)
There's a reference to what the scans should look like
Cons: Expensive per developed and scanned roll
Probably need another body/camera so I'm not stuck with slides when I want B&W.

Hybrid - Print film + scanning
Pros: Pro print film looks good (apparently from what I've seen)
Cons: Cheaper per developed and scanned roll than slides
There's no reference to what the scans should look like so I may need to calibrate my monitor to post process (correct me here if I'm wrong)
Probably need another body/camera so I'm not stuck with colour when I want B&W.

Analogue - Just slides
Pros: Slightly cheaper as no scanning
Cons: Still relatively expensive
Harder to share - I do have my parents projector (quality unknown) but who's going to sit down these days especially around my age (25)?

I'm not going to do my own darkroom work with colour as the costs of setting up wouldn't be far from just going all digital.

I've currently got a roll of provia 100f loaded, also a roll of agfa ct100 precisa ready to go after and I'll probably give ektar a go too so I can see them for myself.
In scanning print film is there a "correct" looking scan or is it more up to operator/scanner? I had a roll of kodak ultramax developed and then scanned at two different labs and they look different, though one was quite poor. They also both seem to be different to a few digital shots I took. Is this all as to be expected?

Any advice and thoughts would be appreciated.

 

[lenny]

Knowing what you are wanting to accomplish would be very helpful.

You can't rely totally on color management, it's only a start. It just means that the moves you make on your computer will somewhat match the results on the printer. You still have to make prints one at a time, improve them as you can, etc.

Scanning is an art, not a science, it is totally operator influenced. I would go to scan operators, vs labs. Labs can have some kid int he back doing it, who has no idea what their looking at...

I like hybrid the best.... print or slide film depends on what your shooting is, what you are looking at, etc.

 

[pschwart]

Currently I frequently shoot black and white film on a pentax spotmatic but also have a nikon d3300 though do not shoot much colour. Recently I've been thinking about doing more colour photography and am trying to work out my best option in terms of cost and control. With my black and white I do my own enlarging so have control over the whole process.

Options for colour I've thought of are:
Digital - "properly" with calibration etc
Pros: Not many ongoing costs
Good quality
Cons: Largish upfront cost - monitor calibrator, perhaps new monitor/PC, if I want a film look then money for lightroom and presets (and it won't quite be the same)

Digital - Cheaply using free software and not calibrating my monitor
Pros: No cost
Cons: Less control over final output
More effort in working out how to post process a look I like. Film shots tend to look nicer/more saturated straight out of the camera, though I'm not married to either look.

Hybrid - Slide film + scanning
Pros: Slide film looks good (apparently from what I've seen)
There's a reference to what the scans should look like
Cons: Expensive per developed and scanned roll
Probably need another body/camera so I'm not stuck with slides when I want B&W.

Hybrid - Print film + scanning
Pros: Pro print film looks good (apparently from what I've seen)
Cons: Cheaper per developed and scanned roll than slides
There's no reference to what the scans should look like so I may need to calibrate my monitor to post process (correct me here if I'm wrong)
Probably need another body/camera so I'm not stuck with colour when I want B&W.

Analogue - Just slides
Pros: Slightly cheaper as no scanning
Cons: Still relatively expensive
Harder to share - I do have my parents projector (quality unknown) but who's going to sit down these days especially around my age (25)?

I'm not going to do my own darkroom work with colour as the costs of setting up wouldn't be far from just going all digital.

I've currently got a roll of provia 100f loaded, also a roll of agfa ct100 precisa ready to go after and I'll probably give ektar a go too so I can see them for myself.
In scanning print film is there a "correct" looking scan or is it more up to operator/scanner? I had a roll of kodak ultramax developed and then scanned at two different labs and they look different, though one was quite poor. They also both seem to be different to a few digital shots I took. Is this all as to be expected?

Any advice and thoughts would be appreciated.

Unless your first priority is minimizing cost, decide what you want to end up with and a workflow that appeals to you, then decide what it will cost.
The only option you listed that does not need a good IPS monitor, calibration hardware & software, and good image editing software is "Analogue - Just slides."
"Digital cheaply" seems like an exercise in frustration; I wouldn't bother.

 

[Carriage]

Thanks for the help guys.

Knowing what you are wanting to accomplish would be very helpful.

Yeah, this is something I actually haven't put enough thought into.

Unless your first priority is minimizing cost, decide what you want to end up with and a workflow that appeals to you, then decide what it will cost.
The only option you listed that does not need a good IPS monitor, calibration hardware & software, and good image editing software is "Analogue - Just slides."
"Digital cheaply" seems like an exercise in frustration; I wouldn't bother.

Given that in hindsight I'm not really in a position to upgrade my monitor (and PC) at this time, I might just focus on B&W shooting slides and digital occasionally as I can always scan/post process in the future for things that are important to me.

Can a lab not match scans to slides or is it just the effort involved becomes costly?

 

[lenny]

Can a lab not match scans to slides or is it just the effort involved becomes costly?

Nothing matches automatically. It takes a human to analyze and match things.... hopefully one that understands what they are looking at.

 

[Carriage]

How do you compare print film? With slides you know how it's "supposed" to look, but with print film you don't until scanned and then you'd need to post process. Do the different films just give you different starting points and arguably you could convert from say an ektar look to a portra look?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Currently I frequently shoot black and white film on a pentax spotmatic but also have a nikon d3300 though do not shoot much colour. Recently I've been thinking about doing more colour photography and am trying to work out my best option in terms of cost and control. With my black and white I do my own enlarging so have control over the whole process.

Options for colour I've thought of are:
Digital - "properly" with calibration etc
Pros: Not many ongoing costs
Good quality
Cons: Largish upfront cost - monitor calibrator, perhaps new monitor/PC, if I want a film look then money for lightroom and presets (and it won't quite be the same)

Digital - Cheaply using free software and not calibrating my monitor
Pros: No cost
Cons: Less control over final output
More effort in working out how to post process a look I like. Film shots tend to look nicer/more saturated straight out of the camera, though I'm not married to either look.

Hybrid - Slide film + scanning
Pros: Slide film looks good (apparently from what I've seen)
There's a reference to what the scans should look like
Cons: Expensive per developed and scanned roll
Probably need another body/camera so I'm not stuck with slides when I want B&W.

Hybrid - Print film + scanning
Pros: Pro print film looks good (apparently from what I've seen)
Cons: Cheaper per developed and scanned roll than slides
There's no reference to what the scans should look like so I may need to calibrate my monitor to post process (correct me here if I'm wrong)
Probably need another body/camera so I'm not stuck with colour when I want B&W.

Analogue - Just slides
Pros: Slightly cheaper as no scanning
Cons: Still relatively expensive
Harder to share - I do have my parents projector (quality unknown) but who's going to sit down these days especially around my age (25)?

I'm not going to do my own darkroom work with colour as the costs of setting up wouldn't be far from just going all digital.

I've currently got a roll of provia 100f loaded, also a roll of agfa ct100 precisa ready to go after and I'll probably give ektar a go too so I can see them for myself.
In scanning print film is there a "correct" looking scan or is it more up to operator/scanner? I had a roll of kodak ultramax developed and then scanned at two different labs and they look different, though one was quite poor. They also both seem to be different to a few digital shots I took. Is this all as to be expected?

Any advice and thoughts would be appreciated.

Can't you just stick to digital capture for now and decideon how to post-process later?

 

[lenny]

How do you compare print film? With slides you know how it's "supposed" to look, but with print film you don't until scanned and then you'd need to post process. Do the different films just give you different starting points and arguably you could convert from say an ektar look to a portra look?

Carriage,

I don't worry too much about the film. I look at the image - what was the photographer looking at, what's the intent of the image. I think you have to define the terms of your "looks". If what you mean by Ektar is a more contrasty look, for example, then that's very easy to do. Once you get a nice, smooth, soft scan in the computer its easy to make it do whatever you want. "Post-Processing" is just a couple of points on the curve...

 

[Carriage]

Can't you just stick to digital capture for now and decideon how to post-process later?

Yeah, this is basically what I'm thinking. I'll keep doing B&W film because I enjoy doing it though.

I don't worry too much about the film. I look at the image - what was the photographer looking at, what's the intent of the image. I think you have to define the terms of your "looks". If what you mean by Ektar is a more contrasty look, for example, then that's very easy to do. Once you get a nice, smooth, soft scan in the computer its easy to make it do whatever you want. "Post-Processing" is just a couple of points on the curve...

I suppose what I'm asking is, what do people prefer about hybrid over pure digital? I suppose medium format and bigger is an advantage but is there a good reason to prefer 35mm hybrid?

 

[lenny]

I suppose what I'm asking is, what do people prefer about hybrid over pure digital? I suppose medium format and bigger is an advantage but is there a good reason to prefer 35mm hybrid?

As I have mentioned before I am a student of fine printing. When I say fine printing, I am thinking of Frederick Evans, Frank Meadow Sutcliffe, Carleton Watkins and Paul Caponigro, to mention a few. I am after a look that is rich, smooth and delicious.

There is another interest I have. In one image that I have printed, people look at it for a few seconds and "fall into it". They imagine themselves walking around inside the image. I consider this "experiencing" the image vs just seeing it on the wall. When the image is at the right contrast (fairly low in this case), the image sustains enough interest, when there is a over-abundance of both detail and tonality, something happens to the viewer to engender this effect. The viewer has to feel "comfortable" enough to step into the other reality, so to speak. It has to match their perception of how they see the world around them. I find that contrasty images have too many sharp images for this effect to occur... (it's too dangerous in there) and small film doesn't separate out enough tones at larger sizes. This is my reason for shooting large format.... I want all that tonality, and all that depth of field, so that people can experience my images. It's a work in process....

One question might be, "What are you shooting, and is the camera the right size to deliver what you want?" If it isn't there are many lightweight medium format cameras that are easily as light as a pro dslr. If you are shooting not he street and your images are about the kind of things that Bresson's images were, then by all means, shoot with a 35mm, digital, whatever.

If you want to print contrasty, it doesn't matter what camera you use. If you want to print rich and delicious, and be able to do it at 16x20, for example, you have to use larger film.

You simply can't make a print larger than 8 or 9 inches from a 35mm camera that will match what larger film can do. Larger film is larger, period, and its a huge factor. Everyone is different, and not that many are that interested in print quality, the different effects that occur, etc. Everyone gets to choose... what their own expression will be.

 

[Carriage]

What are the advantages of 35mm hybrid over digital?

 

[lenny]

What are the advantages of 35mm hybrid over digital?

For 35mm, the differences will be difficult to see. It depends if you are using a pro-dslr vs an iPhone, of course, when you say digital, but there isn't a lot of difference on a small print.

The tones will display differently, of course, but much of that can be managed in Photoshop. If you print large, you might see something... but most wouldn't with 35mm anyway...

There is the issue of cost, film is cheap compared to spending a lot of money on a new camera and lenses. Over time, this gets much less, depending on the amount of film one uses, but by then you will need a newer digital camera, etc. There is the efficiency of not having to scan... it's one less step.