# Decisions, decisions....



## PNA (Aug 21, 2006)

I need suggestions and where better to get them, but from TPF members, of course.

Heres the scenario. I was brought up on film, B&W in fact, and my heart is still there. Recently I purchased a new F5 and truly love the feel and weight of the unit. Compared to my F3 w/motor the F5 is a joy to use. I also have a D70 and as we all know digital has replaced film as the accepted medium today. The D70 is also a complete and exciting camera to use and when editing with PS.well, WOW.  

Now to the issues.... B&W film is not readily available here so I must order online, no big deal, but it's something else to deal with. I havent developed film for ages, but I can get the necessary tank, chemicals, etc. online. Also no big deal. As for a scanner, I have an HP 3970 flatbed which is slow and sometimes not to accurate, a good upgrade might be a Nikon 5000. Or. Have Sams develop the film and put it on disk which limits the type of B&W film to C-41, ISO (ASA) 400 and reduces resolution quality. :meh: 

OK, now do I order film and developer, upgrade the scanner and go retro or upgrade the D70 to a D200 or D2Xs, put the F5 on the shelf in a dust cover next to the F3 and go digital! 

Im looking for your thoughts, thanks.


----------



## LaFoto (Aug 21, 2006)

Move next to my house, install the darkroom, buy the tanks and chemicals and teach me darkroom.
I would so love to learn it (again/better)!
There was a friend who said he might put his old darkroom back into use, but he decided otherwise, so no darkroom access for me. But if I could, I would do ALL sorts: handmade b+w AND digital, and colour films handed into the local drugstore for machine development. I am like that.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Aug 21, 2006)

I when back to doing my own B&W developing about 2-1/2 years ago, but had the prints made at a local mom & pop lab that had good prices. Well they are closed now. Found a new lab but their prices are mush higher. 

My subject would be to get a good scanner. I have a medium grad Epson flatbed negative scanner it just OK IMO. I&#8217;ve been thinking about upgrading too. You should be able get a nice 35mm negative only for under $500 or for MF & 35mm around $1400,

Also both C-41 BW film can be pushed & pulled with no change in processing.


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 21, 2006)

Does it have to be either one or the other?  I really enjoy shooting both film and digital.  Each has it's strengths, and it's sort of refreshing to go back and forth.


----------



## KevinR (Aug 21, 2006)

It is a true dilemma. I went from film(B&W developing and printing) to a D200 and really haven't gone back......yet. I keep telling myself I will start shooting film again. But I don't know. I'm leaning towards you getting the film stuff just because the F5 is such a cool camera. But ...........................

What a waffle answer.


----------



## thebeginning (Aug 21, 2006)

that's a toughy.  if you wouldnt have bought the f5 it would have been easier because i would have just said to stay all digital or try some MF or LF film instead of 35mm.  IMO 35mm film just doesnt have that many advantages, although it is fun to develop and print.  but since you bought the f5, why not just buy the equipment and chemicals to develop and continue using your d70?  then, if you decide you want to upgrade your d70 later on, you can.


----------



## PNA (Aug 21, 2006)

Y'al seem to be leaning torward the film side of the issue...... :thumbup: 

OK, I wonder what the results would be if I posted the same message in the digital thread..... :mrgreen: 

Will you mods allow me to repost in the digital thread????


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 21, 2006)

If you can't think of a really good reason to shoot film, then go digital.  Everybody's doing it.    There's no doubt in my mind that it's more convenient, and in most ways just as good as 35mm quality.  It's pretty much taken over most of the photography where I would have used 35mm in the past.  For me the main advantages of film are in medium and large format, and I like shooting my old cameras.

I'll be honest, I never understood why anyone other than a sports/action photog would haul around an F5.  If you are going to be toting that much camera, why not medium format?


----------



## terri (Aug 21, 2006)

> If you can't think of a really good reason to shoot film, then go digital. Everybody's doing it. ;-)


Well, I'm not doing it, and can't imagine a good reason to spend good money on one of them. :razz: But then, I'm a hobbyist, so I don't have to think about the mundane value of being practical. I can still take three weekends to produce a bromoil print series, and believe it's time well spent.  

Acsonpg, I don't think anyone will object if you put this same question in the Digital forum, even though it's not a stretch to wonder what kind of replies you'll get. 

You'll have to figure out why using film still has appeal to you, and whether or not you can envision it still having appeal to you down the line. Only you can really weigh those pros and cons - be objective and make up a list of each, if you have to! Sometimes seeing things written down really makes it easier.


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 21, 2006)

terri said:
			
		

> Well, I'm not doing it,



But I'm sure you can think of plenty of good reasons to continue using film.  I only said switch if you *can't* think of a good reason.  I can come up with lots of good reasons to use both film and digital.  

Besides, Terri, you're just scared!  You're scared of digital like I was scared of digital, and right you should be.  If you give it a chance it will grab a hold of your passion, and run with it, and then you'll be stuck like me.  In love with both mediums.  A photographer sitting on the fence when everyone else wants to choose sides.  It's lonely, but at least I have my cameras, I'm broke, but I have my cameras...


----------



## PNA (Aug 21, 2006)

terri said:
			
		

> You'll have to figure out why using film still has appeal to you, and whether or not you can envision it still having appeal to you down the line. Only you can really weigh those pros and cons - be objective and make up a list of each, if you have to! Sometimes seeing things written down really makes it easier.


 

Terri, thats a really great idea..at this point I believe its strictly nostalgia since digital seems to be more practical in terms of time/production.

Many thanks to all for your opinions and suggestions. Perhaps others will benefit from this thread as well.  

I did post on the digital thread just for kicks...we'll see what the response brings.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Aug 21, 2006)

Film is better for learning and art. Very good for a hobbyist who knows how to expose.

You take your time with composition
The lenses have better feel and are cheaper
The bodies are better. They don't make big viewfinders anymore with digital. (Hassy is the only exception, but how many hobbyists own one? )

In the end you can get a canon digital body and use manual focus on it. Canon EF mount can accept M42, pentax, Leica, Contax/Yashica, Nikkor and some other ones. That's what I would do if I was starting all over.


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 22, 2006)

DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> Film is better for learning and art. Very good for a hobbyist who knows how to expose.
> 
> You take your time with composition
> The lenses have better feel and are cheaper
> The bodies are better. They don't make big viewfinders anymore with digital. (Hassy is the only exception, but how many hobbyists own one? )



Except for the bigger viewfinders, this is *pure hogwash*, Doc!  Don't blame the gear for the photographer's weaknesses!


----------



## terri (Aug 22, 2006)

> Besides, Terri, you're just scared! You're scared of digital like I was scared of digital, and right you should be. If you give it a chance it will grab a hold of your passion, and run with it, and then you'll be stuck like me. In love with both mediums. *A photographer sitting on the fence when everyone else wants to choose sides. It's lonely, but at least I have my cameras, I'm broke, but I have my cameras... ;-) ;-) ;-)*


 awww..... :hug:: nutter!

Nope, I'm one of those oddballs in that I absolutely, genuinely have zero interest in shooting digital cameras. I look at them with the same level of interest I have when seeing a New & Improved toilet scrubbing product. I know this makes me sound like a freak, a luddite, an obstinate ostrich, and I freely admit to all that, too. :mrgreen: 

Now, there may come a day when the only way I can get my hands on a transparency is to make one off my printer, and I'll then be grateful for folks like Dan Burkholder who can show me the way.  

But, give up my film willingly? Why would I do that? How would I make a bromoil? Do image transfers? Hand color on luscious gelatin silver prints? I haven't even started lith printing yet! (that's really what I fear these days...I'm going to be assimilated and you'll never see me again) Plus, I just bought a Mamiya 645 and it's soooooo be-you-tee-ful....  

I'll stay in the dark, alone with my stained fingertips, squinting out at the fence-sitters.... :razz:


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Aug 22, 2006)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> Except for the bigger viewfinders, this is *pure hogwash*, Doc!  Don't blame the gear for the photographer's weaknesses!


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?


----------



## Luke_H (Aug 22, 2006)

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 (Aug 22, 2006)

acsonpg said:
			
		

> ..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 (Aug 24, 2006)

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 (Aug 24, 2006)

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 (Aug 24, 2006)

selmerdave said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 24, 2006)

acsonpg said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 25, 2006)

DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 25, 2006)

acsonpg said:
			
		

> Does anyone out there develop, scan and process in PS???? I&#8217;d like to see your results and hear your thoughts as well, there&#8217;s got to be something I&#8217;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 (Aug 25, 2006)

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

And thanks for you input.


----------



## Orgnoi1 (Aug 25, 2006)

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 (Aug 25, 2006)

Orgnoi1 said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 25, 2006)

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 (Aug 25, 2006)

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

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


----------



## Orgnoi1 (Aug 25, 2006)

acsonpg said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 25, 2006)

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.


----------



## Orgnoi1 (Aug 25, 2006)

Thanks for the compliment... I have to agree if I had a darkroom I would shoot a TON more shots in film... but since the digital age has come... and I can go out and shoot 250 shots at the trains without batting an eyelash... and then go home and process the ones I like within a reasonable amount of time, I shoot MUCH more digital then film... although I like shooting digital... I LOVE shooting medium format B&W...


----------



## PNA (Aug 25, 2006)

Here's the end of the story....I eventually install commercial Minolta B&W and Color copy machines and junked the presses! Again, no one knew the difference......


----------



## markc (Aug 25, 2006)

acsonpg said:
			
		

> I like Angel's wing#2!!! They're all great shots.
> 
> And thanks for you input.


Thanks! (that's on the 10D, btw)

I think you'll find that if you do decide to go with film and scan, that the results will vary a lot based not only on the scanner you choose, but your workflow.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Aug 25, 2006)

markc said:
			
		

> 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.


Fine.

I didn't get the split screen for my digital yet... and I don't have any adapters for EOS mount either.


----------



## raven4ns (Aug 30, 2006)

I shoot using 2 EOS3's and either XP2 super for B&W or Reala for color. I scan these using a Canon FS4000 film scanner and then use PS as my digital lab. In 2007 when Canon releases it's new pigment printer that will give me the prints I want. 
 I would use digital but I hate the loss of information from acutance.  Since I will be doing a lot more  macro and because of my preferences in shooting I will stay with film.  Digital is a lot more convenient but my photography isn't about convenience.


----------

