Hybrid equals Digital ?

[Henk]

Hi,

Just wanted to view some opinions from the "hybriders".

I myself shoot film because I looooove to handle my Bessa R and M4-P.
And I love the smell of film in the morning...

But getting the film through a scanner is like taking a picture with a digital camera.
It "goes through" a CCD color sensor.

I am happy with my results. So far I've used 100 T-MAX which scans really nice.
(Silverfast and Vuescan with coolscan V ED).
Now I'm going to develop my first TRI-X in Ilfosol-S and I hope to get some descent scans out of it and I hope to get a good deal of the wonderful TRI-X look out of it.

How do you "Hybriders" feel about digitalizing your film ? Do you think you can
achieve equal results as in a full analog workflow ?

Thanks for some opinions, I'm just wondering.

[VinceC]

Hybrid all the way. I love the handling of my RF cameras and love the results on film. I also prefer digital workflow (I've made thousands of darkroom prints and was quite fast at it, but I prefer sitting in my living room to hunkering away in a dark, smelly room). I shoot film, have it scanned onto CD at the same time its processed, and then do my darkroom work in PhotoShop.

[nightfly]

I shoot film primarily because scanned film retains much of the character of the film, including the grain and contrast. I find most digital images pretty weak in both tonality and grit. They tend to be very smooth and grey, not unlike C41 black and white film, which I've never liked or desaturated color film scans.

I'm sure someone can shoot raw and has some great plug in that might simulate the same thing but generally, I think digital capture looks pretty weak in black and white while scanned film looks good. Scanning is tedious as hell and not a fun process and I'd gladly give it up if someone would make a camera and a workflow that would get me the same results but I haven't seen it yet.

Also I much prefer making prints on an inkjet to hanging out in a darkroom for hours. The look doesn't quite match a nice fiber print, but it's good enough for me using an Epson 1280 and black only ink. It suits my photographic style.

Some people really dig the darkroom, but I'm not in that camp though I don't mind developing at all and find it meditative.

[shadowfox]

If I can afford the time to do wet-printing, I think I'd enjoy the process. But I don't, so gotta be realistic and digital post-processing allows me to experiment more.

What I am unwilling to give up is the characteristics and unpredictability (read: Magic) of film. So by investing in a good scanner that can preserve those qualities into the digital realm is for me the best balance.

As far as developing the negatives myself, I think I'm up to it. One of these days... (sigh!).

[aad]

Scanned film doesn't usually look the same as a native digital file. Scanners are also a bit different from a digital camera in the way they pick up information.

Since I want a film record of what I shoot, scanning is simply the most convenient way to view the result. I also don't bother with lab scans, don't want to see them-that way the image making process is my own work-or my own fault.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Like some dumb car TV commercial (in the U.S.) has an actor state, I'm "hybrid hybrid".

Unless, of course, you consider a digital workflow for film a "natural" thing.

Like HDR, digitizing is as good as your equipment, available technology and skills; that harmony has to exist. Otherwise, ay ay ay.

[OldNick]

I gave up my wet darkroom 40 years ago. I shoot both film and digital, but prefer film for serious work. For a while I used the CDs available from my local lab, but recognized that they were limited in their resolution. I purchased a couple of early scanners off of *bay and, for serious images, scan my 35mm negatives with a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II and my MF and LF images with an Epson Perfection 2450 scanner. While current generation scanners will outperform these in overall resolution, and provide Digital Ice to clean up some of the dust, the oldies do all that I need at much lower cost.

Jim N.

[df cardwell]

If you become capable with film,
and become capable with the suitable digital steps,
and have a capable way to create a print, or artifact,
AND you develop the vision and imagination to support it all,
Hybrid is a viable craft, with its own potential and syntax.

It can, however,
be a new way to waste lots of time,
and an enormous amount of money.

The critical factor is the transformation of the craftsman,
not a specific bit of gear.

For a Lifetime Tri-X and Leica shooter,
being able to make palladium prints (via digital internegatives)
is an incredible thrill: it makes the image I've seen for 35+ years,
but could ever achieve with available means.
It has made picture taking brand new.


It also seems slightly naughty.

[jbf]

I'm a "hybrid" user myself. I simply dont have the space or time to do traditional wet prints. Besides, I figure i can get much more controlable results through using photoshop, etc.

[Rhoyle]

I do hybrid because I think that I can get very high end color prints from home using either chrome or C41 film. BW is another story. I'm working very hard on achieving excellent results via hybrid. Results are mixed. I'm trying not to think that the only way to get consistently stunning results is via a wet print. Yet, I keep plugging away...

[40oz]

I just use the scanner to organize my images and make it easier to find negatives later. Going through my folders to find frames to print is faster and easier for me than paging though contact sheets of thumbnails. And it's easier to share them over the internet if I want.

I reerve the right to print on my computer, but I have no illusions that it's beter than my enlarger. It's simply no contest. Ink printers are fine for images, but it's weak compared to the real thing from an enlarger.

[350D_user]

Having to spend 30 minutes setting a darkroom up, then only managing two hours at most in it, then having to take the darkroom down again, I've found going hybrid much more enjoyable.

[bsdunek]

I use 'hybrid' for color negative because I don't process it myself, and as said by a couple of others, I can make pretty good prints myself. I have the processor provide a CD with the scans.
Color positive is for slides when I want to project them BIG. There's nothing like it, as, so far, I haven't seen a digital projector that can match a slide projector. There may be some, but I'm sure the price is very high. Of course, if I want a print, I will scan the slide.
B&W is done wet all the way. There is, IMHO, no digital process that matches a good wet print. Who said, 'the smell of deverloper is the smell of creativity'? or something like that. I love my darkroom.

[shadowfox]

True, it just break my heart whenever I saw a perfectly good enlarger got trashed, because no one wanted it.

If only I can slip it into my priorities. Those of you who are single and/or have the time and are thinking about it, go for it.

[dmr]

I daresay that most of the people here now are hybrid in one way or another.

I shoot film, but I do scanning and post-processing and printing all on, yes, {d-word} equipment.

Why? Because I know I can do a better job printing this way, more conveniently, and far less costly, than I could in a wet darkroom.

It works for me, but I wouldn't suggest that my way is the right way for everybody else.

Some people even do just the opposite, shoot digital and then make optical wet prints, even making negatives on transparent media using something like the HP 9180.

[Sparrow]

The quality of the final print is governed by the weakest link in it's production chain; so, as far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t really matter weather that link is digital or analogue it’s consistency that counts

[RayPA]

I agree with just about every post in this thread. I'm a hybrider, and I LOVE shooting film and I love the hybrid process. I've worked in a darkroom and lab, and I while it was fun and creative, I really don't miss it that much. However, because of that experience, making the jump between a wet darkroom and the hybrid process was easy, because there are a lot of similarities. I guess it depends on how you look at it, but Ive come to view my scanner as an enlarger, and Photoshop as an absolutely amazing "darkroom" and toolbox. I think some folks will groan at this, but I really like the scanning part of the process. That's the make or break point. If you can get a good scan, you can eliminate a big chunk of the grunt work in Photoshop, the creative potential of the program seems to open up.

The one thing I realized early on is that there is quite a bit more craft and skill involved in this than I initially envisioned.The impression is that it is simple and automated, which it can be, but the joy and the challenge and the satisfaction comes from working the process all_the_way_through from processing, to scanning, to "darkroom," to printing, and to the final presentation.


.

[M. Valdemar]

If you take a CD which was recorded digitally on a DAT, remixed on an analog console, and transferred the CD to a vinyl LP, which is the "real" one?

Which is better? What are you really listening to?

When does the digital or audio sampling rate become so great so as to be the same as an analog curve? Are there really human-perceived differences?

[OldNick]

Originally Posted by RayPA

The one thing I realized early on is that there is quite a bit more craft and skill involved in this than I initially envisioned.The impression is that it is simple and automated, which it can be, but the joy and the challenge and the satisfaction comes from working the process all_the_way_through from processing, to scanning, to "darkroom," to printing, and to the final presentation.
.

I agree with RayPA, there is much more opportunity for individual expression in scanning and PhotoShop work than many would expect. There is a challenge in handling a difficult negative or slide and finding a way to get a final image that is acceptable or even outstanding. Unless each negative is perfect and all are similar, fine tuning the process will give much better results.

Jim N.

[M. Valdemar]

I've got a graphic artist who works for me in Los Angeles who has Photoshop skills that put me to shame. I mean make me look like less than a rank beginner.

He can make ANYTHING look like anything. He can drop people into photos, change their appearance, make a photo look like it came from any period, duplicate the look of "vintage" ads, the list goes on infinitely. And he's a pot-smoking kid in his early 30's, but an absolute genius.

He was doing covers for X-rated videos when I discovered him and hired him. The talent some people have, or if you look at websites like "FARK", where they do it for fun, is astonishing.

Computer graphics are a real art. There are maestros and punters.

[nightfly]

Originally Posted by M. Valdemar

...He can make ANYTHING look like anything.

I often think, if I could get digital shots to look like my film shots, would I? (I've tried and I can't by the way). I always think it's something with how digital sensors "see" light as compared to film, but this could be complete rubbish or overcome with good photoshop skills. Obviously my scanner is seeing my film the way I want it to be seen. I have no issues with my scanned images.

I have no doubt that this guy can do what you say, I guess there is some mysticism going on for us film shooters, we kinda want what we shoot to look like film not like something else.

Often when I'm frustrated by the time I spend scanning, which is slow torture for me, I start poking around looking for a digital camera that might meet my needs and invariably end up poking around internet forums for hours and coming up with nothing that really does.

Not sure what I'm saying but there's an interesting issue of authenticity here and where we draw the line about what we want our images to look like. I mean life isn't seen and black and white and certainly doesn't look like Tri-X, so right there we are purposely introducing artifice, would taking a digital grab and making it look like Tri-X be any worse, less authentic? And no I dont' even know what authenticity means here. Just food for thought.

[mackigator]

I'm with RayPA - I've really like scanning. It seems like magic to me. The whole hybrid workflow, from waiting on my lab to the joy of a suprise on the lightbox, to peering into the neg with the scanner - it's a joy. It does take time, though. And I've never worked in a traditional darkroom.

[M. Valdemar]

Start out by using Alien Skin's "Exposure II" in Photoshop.

nightfly, why don't you post a large image that you feel has the "film" look you like.

Then post a digital photo that doesn't have the "film" look.

I'll give them both to my artist and ask him to make the non-film-look image look like the film-look image, and repost.

Or I'll post some images and you can guess whether the image originated as "film" or "digital" capture.

[visiondr]

Not to be pedantic but, consider that "analogue" film is ultimately digital medium anyway. Silver halide crystals are either On or Off, or 1 or 0. There is no in between. If you look at B&W film at a microscopic level, the grain looks a bit like pixels, though the grain crystals are less rank and file uniform, of course.

I agree with what RayPA and Sparrow have to say about the hybrid process. It can be fun. To those who abhor scanning; have you ever spent hours doing contact sheets in a darkroom, then working out exposures, printing, dodging, burning, washing, drying, spotting prints, not to mention mixing chemicals and cleaning up? Really, scanning is far less drudgery.

[RayPA]

Originally Posted by M. Valdemar

If you take a CD which was recorded digitally on a DAT, remixed on an analog console, and transferred the CD to a vinyl LP, which is the "real" one?

none of them are real.this is not a pipe.

Which is better?

It doesn't matter, as long as the process doesn't interrupt your enjoyment. Dancing to a skipping LP or CD is tough to do.Although, I find a skipping LP to be less annoying.

What are you really listening to?

sound waves

When does the digital or audio sampling rate become so great so as to be the same as an analog curve?

as long as you can still hear John Bonham's bass drum pedal squeeking on 'Black Dog' it doesn't matter

Are there really human-perceived differences?

Again, as long as you can still hear John Bonham's bass drum pedal squeeking on 'Black Dog' it doesn't matter







.