Does It Really Matter Anymore? Do We Even Understand the Rules Now?

[NickTrop]

In the age of hybrid digital processing, where you develop negatives and scan them into your PC, and using sophisticated SW like Lightroom and Photoshop CS to manipulate raw or DNG files - does:

1. The film you use really matter? The scanner "scans" it the way it sees it, largely if not wholly, stripping away the latent character of the film. Vuescan uses profiles - want your film to look like TMax 100? 400? What density would you like? PS plug-ins and actions like Exposure tweak the curves to match specific film profiles - Tri-X, TMax, Delta, whatever. Should you just buy what's on sale?


2. Does developer matter? Why use Diafine or other developers to push film if in Lightroom I can - again, futz with curves, add or subtract exposure stops, tweak gamma, brightness, and contrast in post?
2a. Wouldn't it be better, then, to shoot at lower ISOs, get an underexposed neg, with all the tonality intact in the properly exposed zones, and make the necessary adjustments digitally, instead of pushing the negative several stops above box (or real) speed and losing contrast? Why use Rodinal for better edge sharpness when I can get all the edge sharpness I want using SW?

3. Does the alchemy of development matter - agitation vs inversion, how many times, how many seconds, dilutions of developer matter for the same reasons?

If we're processing and scanning, and so much can be done (and frankly better and with far, far, far more control) in digital "post" that used to be a function of variables associated with physically/chemically developing the negative...

... and we're now really dealing with the negative twice in the workflow. First the physical development of the neg, then a second time "developing" the digitized neg (DNG or "RAW") file...

Does anything of what we learned from Ansel Adams (The Negative) matter? Is any of it still relevant? And what should our objective be in the "first" negative process (chemical) to facilitate manipulation in the "second" processing of the negative? What characteristics or properties should be a function of the initial chemical negative process, and what should we be manipulating in the digitized negative? What image characteristic is more suited to each phase? Or does it even matter? Should I try to get more sharpness in the chemical development of the negative via developer choice? Or should I chose a less "sharp" developer (or method, or dilution) that produces better tones but add edge sharpness digitally? (As an example...)

What are the rules for this now? Does anyone truly understand it?

[SolaresLarrave]

No, but it's fun, and that's why it matters, Nick. Go out and shoot now and stop fussing about these things. :)

[NickTrop]

No, but it's fun, and that's why it matters, Nick. Go out and shoot now and stop fussing about these things. :)

It's not really "fussing". And yes - it is fun. And I do shoot. But the entire process has fundamentally changed and I really don't think anyone genuinely understands it, or how to get the max quality from their images. What should be done as part of the chemical process, what should be done in the digital process, or even if it matters.

Asking the questions is fun too. This is a blog after all ;)

[JeremyLangford]

I for one basically get my colors, sharpness, and exposure exactly how I want it due to scanning myself and then post-processing on the computer. I think If I wanted to get the colors I wanted without "cheating" I would have to cross-process which costs may more than my $1.47 per roll to develop at Wal-Mart.

[jan normandale]

Nick.. currently my modus operandi is "go big or go home" Digital still has a long way to go to catch up to a 4x5 unless you're a gazillionaire and you can afford a 5 kg digital back for $60,000.00

For me it's still fun and we all set 'handicaps' for ourselves in our games. Film is mine for photography.

[JeremyLangford]

It's not really "fussing". And yes - it is fun. And I do shoot. But the entire process has fundamentally changed and I really don't think anyone genuinely understands it, or how to get the max quality from their images. What should be done as part of the chemical process, what should be done in the digital process, or even if it matters.

Asking the questions is fun too. This is a blog after all ;)

Yea. Sometimes I wonder if Im missing out on the true photography process. But I honestly dont think I would be happy with the results (mostly the colors) I could try and get without doing any type of post-processing.

[tripod]

I can do what I want to do, and how I want to do it. I continue to do it the old fashoined way so I don't have to worry.

[Thardy]

Yes, the scanner scans what it sees but what I've observed is that you can't really change the character of the film through software (I've tried). If a film is smooth or grainy, sharp or soft the scan seems to reflect those traits.

[Bob Michaels]

There are many steps, from film selection, exposure, and focus, through developer choice, scan parameters, photoshop actions, all the way to the final dither algorithm in the printer.

Each of these many steps is a zero gain, where you just try to minimize your losses step. You can never make up for an unsharp neg no matter what you do with sharpening in an image editor. You cannot minimize grain other than by blurring the image so it doesn't show. You can't recapture data lost to unexposed shadow detail or recover a truly blown out highlight.

In other words, if it ain't on the neg, no process will ever get it back.

[Al Patterson]

Riles? We don't need no stinkin' rules...

So far I've been lazy. If I shoot film, I develop it and hardly ever scan. I shoot digital in JPEG format. Now, I could scan my film and play with it, but I already spend WAY to much time in front of the computer as it is. Maybe when I retire I can take the 40 plus computer hours that used to be called "work" and use them for post-processing and manipulation. Or I can shoot more.

[NickTrop]

The question is, the workflow and process has fundamentally changed in how we MAKE a photo for many of us who are still film shooters. We are processing our negatives twice now (and I'm mostly speaking of black and white here). There is overlap in terms of the image characteristics we traditionally agonize over between the chemical process and the digital process.

When we MAKE a photo, what should be manipulated through the chemical process of "The Negative", and what should be manipulated in the digital part of "The Negative" to maximize emotional impact to make the best photo we can make. What roll does the chemical process play, and is it even relevant? Should I shoot at box speed and develop everything in D76, leaving this part of the process mundane - just get a negative that "scans well" and manipulate everything - from sharpness, to pushing, to contrast level - etc., etc., etc. digitally? Or should I still "make choices" in terms of dilution, times, developer used, inversion, agitation, "adding other chemicals" like sulfates or vitamen C (whatever - and, no, I've never done this)? Does even my choice of film matter?

I don't think anyone understands the hybrid workflow, personally.

[Thardy]

I've read that some people expose and process to render a "flat " negative, then use software to get the contrast they want.

For those of us who don't process our film, we're at the mercy of the lab tech of the day.

[JeremyLangford]

The question is, the workflow and process has fundamentally changed in how we MAKE a photo for many of us who are still film shooters. We are processing our negatives twice now (and I'm mostly speaking of black and white here). There is overlap in terms of the image characteristics we traditionally agonize over between the chemical process and the digital process.

When we MAKE a photo, what should be manipulated through the chemical process of "The Negative", and what should be manipulated in the digital part of "The Negative" to maximize emotional impact to make the best photo we can make. What roll does the chemical process play, and is it even relevant? Should I shoot at box speed and develop everything in D76, leaving this part of the process mundane - just get a negative that "scans well" and manipulate everything - from sharpness, to pushing, to contrast level - etc., etc., etc. digitally? Or should I still "make choices" in terms of dilution, times, developer used, inversion, agitation, "adding other chemicals" like sulfates or vitamen C (whatever - and, no, I've never done this)? Does even my choice of film matter?

I don't think anyone understands the hybrid workflow, personally.


It is truly personal preference, but I would definately look at a photographers photos differently if I knew that he never did any processing on a computer and got his desired affects through chemical processes.

I personally, dont ever shoot B&W film because I love color photos and I would hate to miss out of some sweet color opportunitys because my camera was loaded with B&W film. I do, however, appreciate how B&W film can help the viewer focus more on subject, composition, and DOF more clearly.

All I shoot is color C-41 film. I usually hate how the picture looks right after it is scanned. But I am getting better every day at messing with the curves in Photoshop to achieve the desired exposure and colors.

If I wanted to get the desired results without a computer, I would buy a Lomo-LCA camera and have my photos cross-processed. But Im not goinf to do that because I love using my fisheye on my SLR.

[NickTrop]

.

Yeah - a 16 year old film shooter. Or is that a misprint? Oh - what the hell, "yeah" anyway.

[NickTrop]

Oh - and PS, of course I know the answers to the questions I posed. I'm just checking to see if the dunderheads here (a term of endearment, so no flames please) who call themselves photographers do. There are correct answers to these questions. Do you know what they are?

n'ght all.

[craygc]

In the age of hybrid digital processing, where you develop negatives and scan them into your PC, and using sophisticated SW like Lightroom and Photoshop CS to manipulate raw or DNG files - does:

1. The film you use really matter? The scanner "scans" it the way it sees it, largely if not wholly, stripping away the latent character of the film. Vuescan uses profiles - want your film to look like TMax 100? 400? What density would you like? PS plug-ins and actions like Exposure tweak the curves to match specific film profiles - Tri-X, TMax, Delta, whatever. Should you just buy what's on sale?

I largely disagree with this view. The character of the film is what it is and is there on the negative. A good scanner will capture that character. There is a noticeable difference between a Delta/Tmax/Trix scan.

Vuescan profiles are merely starting points and dont make one film look like another. All youre doing is applying some gamma and or curve correction to a linear ouptut from the CCD. To even attempt that you would need to have a profile that knew what the base emulsion was. Just having a Tmax profile doesnt make Trix look anything like it. The response curve and tonal range of films are different and are captured in a scan.


2. Does developer matter? Why use Diafine or other developers to push film if in Lightroom I can - again, futz with curves, add or subtract exposure stops, tweak gamma, brightness, and contrast in post?
2a. Wouldn't it be better, then, to shoot at lower ISOs, get an underexposed neg, with all the tonality intact in the properly exposed zones, and make the necessary adjustments digitally, instead of pushing the negative several stops above box (or real) speed and losing contrast?

If you need to push film to get an image, then Software isnt going to provide the same capabilities - you first need to capture it in scanning and that is where the problem lies. If the image isnt developed on the neg then you cant scan it. (BTW, if you push film speed you will not be losing contrast :D)

"Properly Exposed Zones" is a bit of a loaded phrase. You can always move your zones around, include some, exclude others, expand them or compress them. All of this will be achieved much better on film than digitally on the scanned image. Some reasoning for this; any tone on film (B&W at least) is some representation of grain density. Its the this mix of grain (light blocking) and no grain (light passing) areas that represent the tone, and that is also how its scanned. Whenever you start trying to move a tone significantly form its actual representation you are exaggerating the grain density rather than changing the actual density and that can noticeably impact the appearance of an image.

Why use Rodinal for better edge sharpness when I can get all the edge sharpness I want using SW?

The sharpness you get from developers such as Rodinal is very different to what you can achieve in software.

[Thardy]

Not 16 y/o....it's supposed to be 61!

Hey, my 17 y/o daughter has a friend who shoots film for school events..her dad is a professional photographer though.

My other daughter (15y/o) will take photography next year and they still process BW film!

Keep hope alive.

[craygc]

I've read that some people expose and process to render a "flat " negative, then use software to get the contrast they want.


This is more to ensure you avoid bullet proof negs for the poor little scanner lights :D Apart from that, negs represent a DR of about 2.0 so as most scanners can easily exceed that, a scanned neg will always look a little flat out of the scanner without adjustments.

[JeremyLangford]

Yeah - a 16 year old film shooter. Or is that a misprint? Oh - what the hell, "yeah" anyway.

Yup. Im 16 and I hate digital cameras more than anything. Im film all the way. I shoot with an old, fully manual Minolta SRT-101.

But dont think I am perfect. The reason I got into photography was thanks to my dads Canon 30d digital slr.

And also, Im not strictly RFs. I love street photography, but I sacrifice the noise and size of a RF so that I could easily switch around from my 3 lenses (50mm f/1.7, 35mm f/2.8, and 16mm f/2.8). Also, I really wanted to have Depth of Field preview a lot. I use it a lot, especially with my f/1.7.

[jan normandale]

Dear Nick Trop (interestingly "trop" in french means "too much") if I'm a "dunderhead" I guess you're the "dundee head" LoL

Anyway to the question you pose "Do you know what they are?" Sure do! Hope you do too and it's not a rhetoric question.

cheers Jan
... btw a gallery is a good thing if you discuss photography

[NickTrop]

In the hybrid digital age, when shooting black and white film...

Does film choice matter anymore?
Does what speed you shoot really matter?
Does developer matter?
Does inversion, agitation, dilution matter?
And all other "black and white" negative development mojo and alchemy matter?

... when developing black and white negatives in the chemical development phase of the workflow?


Only I - and I alone - NickTrop, have determined the one true and correct answers to these and other questions facing the modern black and white film photographers who process digitally...

How do you keep a bunch of dunderheads in suspense?

I will tell youse all tomorrow...

[NickTrop]

... btw a gallery is a good thing if you discuss photography

http://nicktrop.deviantart.com/gallery/

I mostly make prints, what few "throw aways" I bother to post online, a rarity, can be found above.

Cheers m8t.

[jan normandale]

I'm waiting right here just to show you you can't keep me in suspenz or whatever that word is.

[ZorkiKat]

Nick

The film type, exposure, and processing- and everything else that comes before scanning matters. I had always thought that scanning and subsequent actions, be they from the SW or manual tweaking would cancel out the characteristics of the previous steps.

But these remain. The scanner indeed 'sees' and its SW only 'reads' what is there. I can still see the differences between a D76 and Rodinal-developed negative. The enhanced sharpness and sharp grain of the latter is still there. In this regard, the scanning process can soften these details but subsequent sharpening (as is often needed to restore what is lost) reveals them again.

The differences in contrast in grain of two emulsions of different speeds also show. "Signatures" like the usual higher contrast of an ISO BW film like EFKE KB 25 shows in photos scanned from it, and will stand out very obviously when compared to photos scanned from something like ISO 400 Fuji Neopan. And the usual gang - sharpness, finer grain, colour sensitivity, grey rendering from filtration, etc- is there.

Scanning and editing SW like Vuescan, Silverfast, Photoshop or Lightroom can be used many ways: One, to use them so that their influence on the picture is limited. Two, they could be used like the old wet darkroom tools- as an extension of the developing process itself, controlling contrast like the graded papers or VC filters did, varying the image tone like the use of bromide/chlorobromide papers and cold or warm developers, or even chemical toning to achieve sepia, blue, or even green tones. Three, they can be used to crop, much like raising the enlarger head. Or Four, radically changing the image by editing it so that it no longer resembles what BW film can normally do.

In the end, the digital tools are no more different than the traditional wet darkroom tools, if used 'properly'. Anyone who's had experience in the darkroom can recreate what he did in the computer, and get more than satisfactory results. The pics won't necessarily look 'digital'.

The 'concerns' you enumerated above still matter. :)

Jay

[Nh3]

Digitization and post-processing software has brought the end of photography as an art. I admit to that fact even though most of my work is in digital.

[DougFord]

The ‘character’ of the negative is determined by the chemical process, which includes the film/dev combo.
Scanning the neg properly, can translate into a digital file that has faithfully captured the original ‘character’ of the neg
Post processing is another story.

Does the chemical process ‘matter’ in the end?
It does if it is purposefully used to achieve the desired end result by the individual creating the image.

[Nh3]

It has done no such thing. A negative fresh out of the camera isn't a sacred thing, not to be messed with. Ansel Adams messed with his negatives big time to end up with many of his well known photos. Is it only art when it's done in a wet darkroom rather than on a computer monitor?

It really seems that there is a growing film cult that perpetrates a scorched earth agenda toward any other technology. No one worshiped film before digital. We mostly cursed it for its limitations and struggled to create art despite them.

Ansel Adams created the zone system which even until know most people don't get. He had decided on the development and printing before he even made the exposure, that's what he called previsualization. Then he spend countless hours in darkroom dodging and burning with his hand. Now to compare that with photoshop is an insult to Ansel Adams. His postprocessing was part of his craft where as anyone can do postprocessing in their computer by pushing buttons and if it did not work pressing the undo button... So, please lets not compare darkroom techniques with photoshop.

I'm a digital shooter, but I know this much that the only way I can be taken seriously as an artist is if i shoot film. Digital is easy and lacks "authenticity".

[myoptic3]

In many ways you're right. You can do a lot more w/ your film digitally than in a darkroom. But your source still counts. You really have to shoot Agfa color film, for instance, to get that Agfa look. Same w/ Tri-X or HP5. Some films just have a native character that cannot readily be duplicated. And if you are going to work in the darkroom everything the Old Masters came up w/ is still relevant.

As much as I like the digital on the back end, I have been looking at some B&W prints done in the 50's in the local museum and they are very interesting indeed. I may yet have to learn some darkroom skills, especially if I want to try a palladium print. It isn't possible to get that look using inkjet printers.

[Bob Michaels]

I Only I - and I alone - NickTrop, have determined the one true and correct answers to these and other questions facing the modern black and white film photographers who process digitally....

Nick:

There are only two possible answers:

a) yes

b) the one espoused by those searching for a Photoshop add-on to recover the photo they missed because they left their camera at home.

[SolaresLarrave]

Photography as an art is not dead. Photography is alive, thriving, and being practiced now by far more people than before, thanks to digital cameras. The fact that we seem to like (and emphasize) one particular process over others... doesn't validate the process as "the best"; only as the one we like.

I for one, while am not crazy about digital media, have to recognize that without it, I couldn't do what I do with my cameras and film. Sure, I ponder about choices... only to the extent that they may make my life easier. Hence, I pick my B&W films based on their "pushability" and the time they require to be souped in developer (the less the better). If this makes me less of a photographer... so be it.

Now, I'm going to Providence, RI, tomorrow, and hopefully I'll be able to shoot some snapshots on Friday morning. :)

Have a cool day! ;)

[akptc]

If I may contribute my very humble opinion - I think there are no rules, there never were any rules. Some folks need "rules" to adhere to in order to excel, others excel in making and breaking them at will. What bothered me a bit in the original question is the "should I". I (again, very very humbly as I am merely a student) say let's leave the rules to the monks and have fun making images any which way we can :)

[SolaresLarrave]

If I may contribute my very humble opinion - I think there are no rules, there never were any rules. Some folks need "rules" to adhere to in order to excel, others excel in making and breaking them at will. What bothered me a bit in the original question is the "should I". I (again, very very humbly as I am merely a student) say let's leave the rules to the monks and have fun making images any which way we can :)

Three cheers to that! :)

[bmattock]

Twenty five or six to four.

[Gradskater]

Im a fairly young guy (27) and I shoot pretty much only film. I buy it cheap (walgreens/fuji $1 a roll) and get the negatives processed. I then scan them at home, and post them online. I make prints only when people ask for them (which is rare because my pictures aren't that good).

I have bought more expensive film, but it didn't make a difference for me once I started messing with the negative using the software.

The game has changed. I took photography in high school and we made wet prints, black and white. I have so much more control over the negative to make the image I want with a digital darkroom.

My main concern is proper exposure, which makes for better scanning.

[irq506]

Hi Nick,
I feel your concerns and understand implicitly.
It seems as though we all shoot now for an end result. Its the way we are conditioned to think. I shoot for various reasons, but after the camera part is done, I do everything for longevity. I develop to get my negatives as flat as I can, I use the developer that does the job in the most chemically sound way, I process to make sure the film will last for as long as possible. I shoot frivolously with direction, I develop with conviction.

I get a feeling of great relief knowing that when I have an image scanned on my computer that I have just ten feet away, in a safe with a real tangible solid piece of film which I know is real and I do not have to use anything other then the light of the sun to see that image.
I got stung when I lost then thousand images I shot on digital and put on DVDs and when I touched base those disks were unreadable... I still have the disks, but those images are inaccessible. So that is why I do what I do.
I never print my work anymore, I am highly trained printer, but I got blood poisoning from the chemicals Pneumonia and Emphysema, I printed little of my own work and mostly for clients and newspapers. I dont really feel the need to print my work, enlargers and darkrooms have no special appeal for me now.

My scanner is crude, my skills are cr*p, my images look OK but its the images that I shoot on slides -the ones I dont scan- are the ones I show in projectors because its the tightest cycle from camera to audience. No corrections no hiding, no faking it, I show my work, I get criticized, I learn and go shoot again and I get it right.

[bsdunek]

In other words, if it ain't on the neg, no process will ever get it back.

Bob said it in the shortest, simplest way possible. All the rest is just how you get there – IMHO!

[tripod]

Hi Nick,
I feel your concerns and understand implicitly.
It seems as though we all shoot now for an end result. Its the way we are conditioned to think. I shoot for various reasons, but after the camera part is done, I do everything for longevity. I develop to get my negatives as flat as I can, I use the developer that does the job in the most chemically sound way, I process to make sure the film will last for as long as possible. I shoot frivolously with direction, I develop with conviction.

I get a feeling of great relief knowing that when I have an image scanned on my computer that I have just ten feet away, in a safe with a real tangible solid piece of film which I know is real and I do not have to use anything other then the light of the sun to see that image.
I got stung when I lost then thousand images I shot on digital and put on DVDs and when I touched base those disks were unreadable... I still have the disks, but those images are inaccessible. So that is why I do what I do.
I never print my work anymore, I am highly trained printer, but I got blood poisoning from the chemicals Pneumonia and Emphysema, I printed little of my own work and mostly for clients and newspapers. I dont really feel the need to print my work, enlargers and darkrooms have no special appeal for me now.

My scanner is crude, my skills are cr*p, my images look OK but its the images that I shoot on slides -the ones I dont scan- are the ones I show in projectors because its the tightest cycle from camera to audience. No corrections no hiding, no faking it, I show my work, I get criticized, I learn and go shoot again and I get it right.


Hey, I really like that idea! I just may look into reversal processing for B+W neg film to create positives to project. Too bad Scala was so expensive and the processing difficult to obtain and not DIY.

[feenej]

Yeah it matters to me; the photos I frame and display are traditional darkroom prints. The computer is not involved.

[Colman]

Personally, I think the move from albumen plates was the beginning of the end, but 35mm film was what really destroyed photography as an art. Or was it colour film? No, hold on, it was digital. Anyway, photography can't be art. It's too easy.

It's only really art when you have to collect all your paint materials, mix them by hand, and make your own canvas and brushes. Sculpture only counts as art if you quarry the stone yourself.

[NickTrop]

Hey, I really like that idea! I just may look into reversal processing for B+W neg film to create positives to project. Too bad Scala was so expensive and the processing difficult to obtain and not DIY.

Or - use DR5. They use a proprietary process to make black and white slides. Prices reasonable imo. http://www.dr5.com/

[DelDavis]

2a. Wouldn't it be better, then, to shoot at lower ISOs, get an underexposed neg, with all the tonality intact in the properly exposed zones, and make the necessary adjustments digitally?

No. The longer your scanner needs to expose to compensate, the noisier your negative will be. If you tell the scanner not to increase exposure, you will still be stuck with a relatively lower signal-to-noise ratio and the noise will be amplified along with the signal when you boost the exposure/brightness in post-processing.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Rulez. Wee don need no steenkin rulez.

:angel:

I hear you, though.

[NickTrop]

No. The longer your scanner needs to expose to compensate, the noisier your negative will be. If you tell the scanner not to increase exposure, you will still be stuck with a relatively lower signal-to-noise ratio and the noise will be amplified along with the signal when you boost the exposure/brightness in post-processing.

I'm not trying to be a smartass but:

The longer you leave your film in developer (to push it) the grainier your negative will be and more tonality it will lost. You will be stuck with a negative that has few gray tones and a lot of grain.

[DelDavis]

I'm not trying to be a smartass but:

The longer you leave your film in developer (to push it) the grainier your negative will be and more tonality it will lost. You will be stuck with a negative that has few gray tones and a lot of grain.

So the real answer to all the problems is neither film nor digital. It is a diffraction-limited, infinite ISO technology I've patented called Filgital. Look for it in coming weeks...

[Pherdinand]

take a frame on tri-x. there is no way you can lightroom it, or photoshop it, or whatever it on a computer, to make it work like exposed at 1600 if you developed it in some low speed developer instead of using diafine.

There are some valid points you brought up regarding the "character" of certain films, but it still matters where you start from, with the digital tweakings.

An underexposed or underdeveloped frame will never give the same good results than a properly exposed one.

Same holds for e.g. out of warranty C41 film. I had some rolls of nps 120 which went out of warranty 3 years ago and although kept in the fridge, it shows. No matter what i do in photoshop, they will never look like fresh, proper 6x6 nps.

[kevin m]

I think the hybrid workflow rocks, for lack of a better term. Better control, faster work, repeatability.

How is exposing film to suit the limited dynamic range of whatever paper you use to print any different than exposing film to suit your scanner?

The precise control of the digital darkroom trumps the look of B&W paper, IMO. You gain so much for the little you lose.... And I bet Ansel Adams would toss his burning and dodging tools in the trash about five minutes after he met the PS "lasso" tool. :D

Guess what film stock this pic was shot with:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2158/2401124108_35ac037325_o.jpg

[Al Patterson]

The answer is 42...

[amateriat]

In brief: Charlie and Jay nail this one. The film, and the process, still matter. I regard my scanners, Photoshop, and the computer that links them both together, as transcription devices for the film I've shot. XP2 comes out looking like XP2; Portra comes out looking like Portra; HP5 souped in HC-110...you get the idea. Not just "kinda-sorta." Otherwide I'd chuck it all and get a D300 or something. The beauty of digital post is that you can, indeed, make the process what you want. You can do the transcription thing as I do, or go to town with all the virtual knobs and levers at your disposal.

And, because of my careful choice in film, and having both very good scanners and a decently-profiled computer/monitor/printer setup, I usually don't sweat bullets to get what's on that piece of film into a digital file, and into a print.

Process still matters.


- Barrett

[nightfly]

If you've developed and scanned film and tried to get a digitally captured image to look this way, you know the answer. Unless you are very talented at Photoshop and start with something like an image from a Canon 5D, you're not going to get close. The response of film and a digital sensor is different.

A scanner is just an enlarger with a different set of imperfections. Film still looks like film and digital still looks like crap for the most part (I'm speaking of black and white). My wet darkroom prints and my scans and ink jet prints are very similar except that I'm a better digital printer than I ever was an analog one.

Using film is like having a huge set of PS actions already encoded in the negative some of which don't even exist in the digital world. I find my low end Epson 4990 is fairly "faithful" to the negative, maybe a little unsharp but honestly my end prints using an Epson 1280 with black only carbon ink look as good or better than one of my darkroom prints although the paper lacks some of the luster of a nice fiber based paper but I've got some new papers to try that promise to narrow this gap.

Seriously people, this ain't magic. Use what works for you. I'd love it if I could could get a digital camera without an on/off switch and with real controls that allow me to glance at the camera and see my film speed, aperture and hyperfocus in a millisecond and change any of these by feel and produced full tonal range black and white images and wasn't gigantic and didn't cost $5000 but it ain't happening.

Film is cheap, manual cameras feel great and work fast and last forever. Why not have a "full frame" sensor for $3/roll.

[jan normandale]

Or - use DR5. They use a proprietary process to make black and white slides. Prices reasonable imo. http://www.dr5.com/

I send my Scala there.

[projectbluebird]

In the hybrid digital age, when shooting black and white film...

Does film choice matter anymore?
Does what speed you shoot really matter?
Does developer matter?
Does inversion, agitation, dilution matter?
And all other "black and white" negative development mojo and alchemy matter?

yes, x5. And I use the hybrid work-flow, and shoot B+W.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Guess what film stock this pic was shot with:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2158/2401124108_35ac037325_o.jpg

That crunchiness is Tri-X.

If it isn't, then I'd like to know your secret (and film stock).

[Jamie Pillers]

Sorry I came to this thread late... as usual. :-(

Thanks Nick for the well-crafted original post! And, as usual, thanks for stimulating my brain cells a bit.

I've grown up around film. I did my tour in the darkroom, read Adams' books, sought out the perfect film for every occasion, etc.. And through all that I suppose I assumed that there was a point of perfection that could be achieved. Today, I wonder if such a "point of perfection" can be found or achieved any more.

After many, many shutter releases, many galleries visited, and many flickr pics seen, I now see that photography has been a chain of "points of perfection". At each point, some characteristics were claimed to be the best by some expert/critic. Today, I can't imagine any such expert would be foolish enough to declare some photographer's work as "perfection"... there's just too much great stuff out there now. And its being produced in sooooo many ways.

So I declare the experts dead. We can now go out there and make photographs any way we want... Walgreen's film processing included. :-)

[NickTrop]

I send my Scala there.

Wow - you still have Scala? BW slides - a thing of beauty. The DR5 process - for those who don't know them, will work with any traditional silver black and white film (NOT C41) and will produce gorgeouos black and white slides from almost any film stock. The site has ISO recommendations.

[Pitxu]

Hi Nick,
Some films are easier to scan than others.
I think your original question is, "given a hybrid work flow, which film/process gives the negative best suited to scanning?"

I'm not experienced enough to know.

(I eagerly await your answers.)

[charjohncarter]

I'm so far down the line now, this has probably been said. But 2 and 2a, one thing that has happened to me is I can develop roll film normally or for as many lighting situations that it can handle, and now I can do N-1 or N+2 using editing programs. My favorite Ansel Adamsesque program is LightZone, it can do simple contraction and expansion or something Ansel couldn't expand or contract specific zones. I still think you get a different 'look' to different films and developers, not just grain and sharpness.

[gregg]

I really like Kodak 400CN (and its professional partners) for scanning - very smooth and you get to use ICE. I haven't seen much of a difference among the 400 color films - I usually convert to B&W so use the cheapest I can get my hands on locally.

On the traditional B&W side I haven't found a good answer other than what many have already said - whatever works for you. None of the film/developer manufacturers in business today have "bad" products. They do have products and combinations you may prefer more or less.

Off-the-shelf Neopan 400 in D76 1:1 looks as good and scans as well (FOR ME) as any of the exotic t-grain, reducing, two bath, gold laced, standing combinations I've tried along the way. I like the look and it works for me.

[Charly]

Kevin M - First I thought Tri X but now I think it could be digital with grain applied (very well) with a filter. I've also seen Neopan 400 look very similar to this and there in an outside chance it's HP5+. Okay, so it's 400 speed and not T-Max!

Oh wait, it's out dated Sainsbury's 100 that you converted in PS.

Seriously, my money is on Tri X but I'm not certain and this raises a good point - but a further one I think is that different people get different results in the same stuff - I can't stand my Tri-X in HC110 but others make it sing.

[Pitxu]

Only I - and I alone - NickTrop, have determined the one true and correct answers to these and other questions facing the modern black and white film photographers who process digitally...

How do you keep a bunch of dunderheads in suspense?

I will tell youse all tomorrow...

Do you feel ready to enlighten us yet Nick?

[NickTrop]

Do you feel ready to enlighten us yet Nick?

Apologies for "bumping" my own thread. However, got tied up at work last night, got some sleep, and it's right back in this morning. I will post "the definitive answer" to all this as soon as I have a chance.

Sorry for keeping youse in suspense.
|

[Charly]

lol @ Nick, the laugh is on the rest of you ;)