Decisions, decisions....

[Luke_H]

acsonpg: only you know where your desires lay in life.. I got my D50 and went to B&W film for personal satisfaction. I shoot color with the D50 digital and a lot of B&W with my N80 or my older cameras.

You can probably replicate grain structures of any film with the right software if you're into that.

I enjoy the process of developing my own film and having the negatives in a binder to peruse at my leisure.

As a hobby, I prefer film. If someone was paying me for my work, I'd probably do digital, as it is easier to get acceptible results and reshoot if need be. I just took a bunch of wedding photos with the D50 and N80.. It's about half and half which photos everyone likes better.

Most people can be acceptible photographers by letting the digital cameras do most of the dirty work. However, a person that can operate a fully manual film camera can make a digital sing. I love it when the diehard film people claim they'll never give film up.. If they shoot great film shots, they'd shoot stellar digital.

And for me, it's about improving myself. Being that it's a hobby and not a job. If I put as much effort into my day job, I'd be making 10x my salary! ha!

 

[Zeabned]

…..at this point I believe it’s strictly nostalgia since digital seems to be more practical in terms of time/production.

True, but in my case with a slight modification. Digital is more practical to use if you happen to have a short learning curve when it comes to digital programs like PhotoShop Elements and the like, especially when shooting RAW. I shoot as best I can in either digital or film, since I like both, and then I send either the cd or the negative to Wolf's or Kodak for processing/developing. For me, a non processor/non developer, the key difference between digital and film is that with digital you can look at the original image immediately. With film, you have to wait until it comes back from the lab. Hopeless amateur that I am, the lab does a better job than I could with PhotoShop tasks or with a film negative. I guess that has simplified my own dilemma a bit.

 

[PNA]

WOW, some great responses and thoughts and I thank you all.

I shot a roll of B&W a few days ago and had it developed and put on disc at Sam's. I'm not at all thrilled with the results (resolution and contrast wise) and after talking with Nikon about their scanners, I not to sure it would be any better if I developed and scanned myself. Right now I'm somewhat disillusioned regarding the film side of the decision. Does anyone out there develop, scan and process in PS???? I’d like to see your results and hear your thoughts as well, there’s got to be something I’m missing.

I’m still wide open to suggestions…………. :er:

 

[selmerdave]

I've found that it takes pretty high-resolution scans to get decent results. The place I go to gives me 18-20MB TIFF's, and for most photos it's okay but they don't compare to the prints and for some photos it really leaves something to be desired. For whatever reason, and I haven't figured this out, I've had much better results getting scans from colour film than B&W. I seem to get better results taking a scan from colour film and then removing the colour in PS than getting a scan from B&W film.

Really at some point I'm going to have to get a scanner because the cost of getting scans done gets prohibitive.

If I were you, I'd sell the F5 and use that money for a scanner, but sounds like you're not of the same mind.

Dave

 

[PNA]

I've had much better results getting scans from colour film than B&W. I seem to get better results taking a scan from colour film and then removing the colour in PS than getting a scan from B&W film.

If I were you, I'd sell the F5 and use that money for a scanner, but sounds like you're not of the same mind.

Dave

Sell the F5, he says......never!!!!

Yep, you seem to be experienceing the same results with film processing, B&W vs. color, as i am. Even the local camera/photo processing shop gives me the same results. They scan at 300 PPI as does Sam's.....We do we go from here????

 

[JamesD]

Does anyone out there develop, scan and process in PS???? I’d like to see your results and hear your thoughts as well, there’s got to be something I’m missing.

I develop BW, print BW, then scan and edit in The Gimp for the ones I want to share online, or send as files so someone else can print themselves. I find that I'm impressed with what I get when I hold an 8X10 glossy print, made under the red light, in my hands. No digital rendition that I've seen comes close to doing it justice, but then, I've never used high-end digital processes. And I've no intention of doing so, since I can make these lovely prints myself.

Really though, a full-size (at least 8X10) black and white print is a thing of beauty. No little 600X400 pixel image on a computer monitor can do it justice, as I recently discovered, slaving to first calibrate my monitor, then slaving to get a good scan on my admittedly low-end flatbed scanner, then slaving to make that scan look as close to the print as possible--and getting nothing looking anywhere near as good. I spent perhaps two hours getting a nice print just the way I want it, finished product, ready to frame and hang. I spent probably another three and a half working on the scan, and only achieved mediocre results. Surely logic prevails!

When I scan a print, I typically work on an image about 3000 X 2000 (almost never less than 2000 X 1300). The results I've had in the past when i've ordered 8X10's (of color photos, since I do the BWs myself) have been marginal, generally acceptable for the dimly-lit walls and too-forgiving eyes of my mother, and something to add a bit of interest to my own, otherwise-blank walls. I could go much larger with a scan, and have a couple of times... the largest I think I've ever worked with was 5500 X 3600... a negative scan at 4000 dpi. However, that was just too much work for my old 1000MHz CPU with it's 128 MB of RAM. That's what, 19 megapixels? I've no need for it, though I'm sure it'd reproduce a nice print if printed at something higher than 300 dpi--or printed at 18X12 inches.

In any case, I find that film satisfies me in a way Digital couldn't, which is one reason why I'm not looking to switch. The actual reason I don't switch is initial investment--another story entirely. If I did acquire digital equipment, it'd satisfy me in ways which film couldn't... for instance, the instant feedback on what my lighting looks like would be wonderful, since I'm beginning to experiment in that area. Each has its pros and cons. Funny, though, at least at first, I'd test with digital, then shoot with film. I'm change-averse, too lol.

I think your third sentence is telling. Film is where your heart is. Go with film. Use digital, too, by all means, but never ignore what your heart tells you. Madness that way lies.

 

[markc]

Larger viewfinder allows me to see better that is actually in the frame... and MF cameras don't steal half of the light for the AF system.

Do you disagree about the lenses too? Do you prefer plastic to metal lenses?

He agreed with you about the larger viewfinder. It's the rest he disagrees with, and so do I. I'm using the exact same metal lenses on my 10D as I did with my EOS5, and I shoot and compose the same way too. Don't blame sloppy habbits on the equipment. I rag on people using zooms all the time, but not because zooms are crap. It's not the zooms, but the lack of understanding how to use them.

 

[markc]

Does anyone out there develop, scan and process in PS???? I’d like to see your results and hear your thoughts as well, there’s got to be something I’m missing.

I used to, with a neg scanner. I got good results, but a digital body is so much easier. I got really tired of feeding the neg strips through the scanner and then having to spot the files because of dust. You can never get them clean enough. It really put off the mood to shoot, because I knew that I had a lot of work ahead of me. With digital capture, I can just sit down and get to work after a relatively quick and unattended download.
It's hard to tell the difference from small web images, but here are a couple that were film:
http://www.markcarpenter.com/gallery/Portraits/unstoppable
http://www.markcarpenter.com/gallery/Portraits/DownOnGrampasFarm
Everything here but the first one: http://www.markcarpenter.com/gallery/MC-LW-Panel1
Everything here but "We Three": http://www.markcarpenter.com/gallery/MC-LW-Panel2
Everything but the girls in white: http://www.markcarpenter.com/gallery/Weddings

Those were scanned on an Acer Scanwit 2720S at 2700dpi.

I'm basically a guy that loves a variety of film cameras but loves the digital workflow more. If I could get a digital capture from a Koni-Omega Rapid or even a Brick, I'd be sooooo happy!

I also want to point out that you can lose information by scanning a print. The resolution of paper is such that 300dpi is the max you can really get from it (3000x2400 for a 10x8 ), which isn't bad, but lower than even my cheap film scanner. The dynamic range of paper is far short of a slide, but I guess it's around that of a negative.
http://www.photo.net/learn/drange/

 

[PNA]

I like Angel's wing#2!!! They're all great shots.

And thanks for you input.

 

[Orgnoi1]

I tried to read through all the thread but with limited time I will just add my $.02 to the mix. Film is fun to shoot, but it seems logistically unless you are willing to develop yourself you are really looking at a no-brainer. I personally never shoot C-41 B&W film because I *HATE* the results... they dont compare to regular T-Max or Ilford Delta. So I will say that in light of your situation I would go with the better digital. I would probably buy the D200 and battery grip, and I would DEFINATELY keep your F5... its a great film camera. I dont know if the D2x is a justifiable camera unless you are a working pro OR you just have money to burn. The D200 will be light years ahead of your D70 (my girlfriend uses the D70 and is upgrading at the end of the year also) in quality and speed.

 

[PNA]

I tried to read through all the thread but with limited time I will just add my $.02 to the mix. Film is fun to shoot, but it seems logistically unless you are willing to develop yourself you are really looking at a no-brainer. I personally never shoot C-41 B&W film because I *HATE* the results... they dont compare to regular T-Max or Ilford Delta. So I will say that in light of your situation I would go with the better digital. I would probably buy the D200 and battery grip, and I would DEFINATELY keep your F5... its a great film camera. I dont know if the D2x is a justifiable camera unless you are a working pro OR you just have money to burn. The D200 will be light years ahead of your D70 (my girlfriend uses the D70 and is upgrading at the end of the year also) in quality and speed.

I like everything you said!!! Specifically your profound statement regarding the F5. :mrgreen:

Has anyone done a side by side comparison of a B&W: shot and develop the film, take the exact same shot with digital, (w/both on
tripod) enlarge a specific area of both shots and compare results.

Hummmmm, sounds like an interesting project! More at eleven.

 

[Orgnoi1]

What you asked of I do have... but with Medium Format film and digital... they werent on a tripod but the settings were similar and both shot handheld... sorry about the large images...

Here is a shot taken with a Canon 1D Mark II and 24-70L..

And here is a shot taken with my Mamiya 645 Pro TL using Ilford Delta Pro ISO400...

 

[PNA]

Great, it appears that you cleaned and enhanced the film shot?

I'm moving them to PS for blowups.......

 

[Orgnoi1]

Great, it appears that you cleaned and enhanced the film shot?

I'm moving them to PS for blowups.......

Yup... you are dead on to a point... I upload all my MF shots (since I post them on my site quite a bit) via a Canon CanoScan 8400F which has MF negative trays @ 3200dpi... the scanning using a non-negative special scanner leaves a little to be desired in the process... so I go through them all in the same (but MUCH slower workflow) as I would using digital images... they dont take much work though to bring them up and if we were talking using the negs to do the actual enlargement they wouldnt need any work at all going direct from neg to large format print...

 

[PNA]

From the photos you sent: I enlarged to 200% and added a bit of contrast to the digital one....these old eyes with reading glasses tell me that the digital shot is a litle sharper, but not by much. I have a HP flat screen f1703, and it's maxied resolution.

Anyone else do a comparison?

Now, is all the work of develpoing the film, printing, enlarging, chemicals then scanning for whatever reasons worth the effort????

My guess is to some, yes, I beleive if I still had a darkroom set up, I'd be hard press to switch.

Nice shots BTW.