Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Film to digital

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 2:29:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Is there anything to be said for shooting with a 35mm film camera and
letting whoever does the processing put the images on a CD for you?

I realize your digital camera eliminates this step, but what are the pros
and cons, and when would this method be preferred, if at all?

Thanks.

Sheldon
sheldon@sopris.net

More about : film digital

Anonymous
January 23, 2005 4:54:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Sheldon wrote:
> Is there anything to be said for shooting with a 35mm film camera and
> letting whoever does the processing put the images on a CD for you?

Most store made CD's are of fairly poor resolution v. what is possible
with most home film scanners.

>
> I realize your digital camera eliminates this step, but what are the pros
> and cons, and when would this method be preferred, if at all?

A good digital camera is better in almost all cases than the CD's that
are provided by most film developers.

The exception is of course service bureau's that provide drum scans...
which are quite expensive.

I'll be getting some MF film scans done soon on Fuji Frontier ... I'll
report the results, but from what others have said I expect to be
disappointed.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 4:54:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne-" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:ct0rsj$bd7$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Sheldon wrote:
>> Is there anything to be said for shooting with a 35mm film camera and
>> letting whoever does the processing put the images on a CD for you?
>
> Most store made CD's are of fairly poor resolution v. what is possible
> with most home film scanners.
>
>>
>> I realize your digital camera eliminates this step, but what are the pros
>> and cons, and when would this method be preferred, if at all?
>
> A good digital camera is better in almost all cases than the CD's that are
> provided by most film developers.
>
> The exception is of course service bureau's that provide drum scans...
> which are quite expensive.
>
> I'll be getting some MF film scans done soon on Fuji Frontier ... I'll
> report the results, but from what others have said I expect to be
> disappointed.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan

That said, if I was going to scan my own film, better to use negatives or
slides (ISO being equal)?

Thanks,

Sheldon
Related resources
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 5:40:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Sheldon wrote:
That said, if I was going to scan my own film, better to use negatives or
> slides (ISO being equal)?

Not sure I understand that. You do scan negatives and slides. The
process is pretty much the same (You have to tell the scan software it
is a negative or a slide, but other than that...)

"ISO being equal"? If you mean, "is digital ISO the same as film ISO?"
then yes (for the most part, there are some subtle differences).

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 5:40:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Let me rephrase the question, and this is probably the wrong group. If you
are going to substitute shooting 35mm for digital, and scan the results to
digital yourself, is it better to use negative film or slide film?

Sheldon

"Alan Browne-" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:ct0ujd$oal$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Sheldon wrote:
> That said, if I was going to scan my own film, better to use negatives or
>> slides (ISO being equal)?
>
> Not sure I understand that. You do scan negatives and slides. The
> process is pretty much the same (You have to tell the scan software it is
> a negative or a slide, but other than that...)
>
> "ISO being equal"? If you mean, "is digital ISO the same as film ISO?"
> then yes (for the most part, there are some subtle differences).
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
>
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
January 23, 2005 7:09:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Sheldon wrote:

> Let me rephrase the question, and this is probably the wrong group. If
> you are going to substitute shooting 35mm for digital, and scan the
> results to digital yourself, is it better to use negative film or slide
> film?
>

I'd say slide. First off you have an original to go by and second you don't
have to deal with all the various "color masks" that while they all look
orange, need different adjustments to get decent color balance. I haven't
done a bunch of this but have scanned some 4X5 negatives and chromes and
the chromes were much easier to deal with.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 8:44:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <HeudnQBmmLwmkmncRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
Sheldon <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>Let me rephrase the question, and this is probably the wrong group. If you
>are going to substitute shooting 35mm for digital, and scan the results to
>digital yourself, is it better to use negative film or slide film?

That depends on the scanner (and, to some extent, to the film).

Each approach has drawbacks.

With negative film, you have the problem of the orange mask, and the
fact that different films have rather different colour profiles.

Reversal film is very simple from a colour standpoint, but can be a
problem on low-end scanners which can't handle the range of densities.

With an 8-bit scanner I'd suggest staying with negative film, and
see if you can get a film profile for your scanner (or use a third
party software solution such as Ed Hamrick's VueScan package).

With a 10-bit (or, preferably, 12-bit) scanner, you should be OK
with slide films.

On an ISO-for-ISO comparison I found that a good high-resolution
slide film (in my case Fuji Provia 100F) produced better scans
than I was able to get from negative film (Kodak Supra 100).
I also preferred the artifacts from dye clouds to film grain.
January 24, 2005 6:25:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <Tr6dnQSLd5kram7cRVn-1g@comcast.com>, sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net
says...
>
>
>"Alan Browne-" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>news:ct0rsj$bd7$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> Sheldon wrote:
>>> Is there anything to be said for shooting with a 35mm film camera and
>>> letting whoever does the processing put the images on a CD for you?
>>
>> Most store made CD's are of fairly poor resolution v. what is possible
>> with most home film scanners.
>>
>>>
>>> I realize your digital camera eliminates this step, but what are the pros
>>> and cons, and when would this method be preferred, if at all?
>>
>> A good digital camera is better in almost all cases than the CD's that are
>> provided by most film developers.
>>
>> The exception is of course service bureau's that provide drum scans...
>> which are quite expensive.
>>
>> I'll be getting some MF film scans done soon on Fuji Frontier ... I'll
>> report the results, but from what others have said I expect to be
>> disappointed.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alan
>
>That said, if I was going to scan my own film, better to use negatives or
>slides (ISO being equal)?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Sheldon

I agree with Alan's statement to the original post. As to your question now, a
very general and basic answer, posed on the assumption that you have good
software with your scanner to handle either, would be: if the highlights are
the most important part of the image, then shoot neg film, but if the shadows
are the most important part, then shoot transparency film. Beyond the
highlight/shadow consideration, there is probably a little less work with
transparency than negative, but otherwise they are equal.

Hunt
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 8:05:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John Francis <johnf@panix.com> wrote:

> With negative film, you have the problem of the orange mask, and the
> fact that different films have rather different colour profiles.

> Reversal film is very simple from a colour standpoint, but can be a
> problem on low-end scanners which can't handle the range of
> densities.

There's a trick I'd like to recommend: over-expose slightly. This
lifts shadow detail out of the toe of the density curve of the film.
Only a slight adjustment is required. I usually expose ISO 100 film
at ISO 80, and this gives good results on a Coolscan 8000.

Andrew.
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 8:05:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <10vaangte4mi854@news.supernews.com>,
<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>John Francis <johnf@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> With negative film, you have the problem of the orange mask, and the
>> fact that different films have rather different colour profiles.
>
>> Reversal film is very simple from a colour standpoint, but can be a
>> problem on low-end scanners which can't handle the range of
>> densities.
>
>There's a trick I'd like to recommend: over-expose slightly. This
>lifts shadow detail out of the toe of the density curve of the film.
>Only a slight adjustment is required. I usually expose ISO 100 film
>at ISO 80, and this gives good results on a Coolscan 8000.

I wouldn't call a Coolscan 8000 a low-end scanner. It's should
have no problem handling just about any film you feed into it.
(Sure, it's not a Leaf, or an Imacon. But it's a nice unit).

I'm also not sure I'd recommend routinely over-exposing slides;
if you're not careful, you can easily end up with blown highlights,
and that's going to lose details you'll never be able to recover.
(The maxim says you should expose for the highlights when shooting
slides, and expose for the shadows when shooting negative film).
There again, I know several people who prefer to rate Velvia at 40
(and even one who rates it at 32). It very much depends on your
equipment and technique, too; those tricky lighting conditions
are exactly the situations where different metering methods (such
as the various multi-pattern modes from different camera brands)
produce the most variation in suggested exposure. If you're not
using the built-in metering, but going with a hand-held meter,
you're just going to learn a different set of heuristic adjustments
for when (and by how much) you vary from the values it gives you.
That Ansel Adams guy knew a thing or two about exposures, as well.
Spot metering on a significant part of the image, and assigning that
to a particular zone, still works as well today as it ever did.

Finally, to drag this back vaguely on-topic (this is, after all,
a DSLR newsgroup) digital sensors should be treated pretty much
as slide film; don't blow out the highlights. Even shooting RAW
(which, depending on camera brand, gives you a stop or so of extra
headroom) isn't going to be enough to help in all situations.
January 24, 2005 11:14:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I've had very good luck with shooting 35mm film and having it scanned
in at 300ppi then printing out at up to 20"x30". The color and
sharpness are quite good.

The scanning is done on a Nikon CoolScan and the film I use is Velvia
100.

Chris
www.hotchilistudios.com
cswift1@swift-mail.com
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 10:51:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"John Francis" <johnf@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ct3d7t$330$1@panix5.panix.com...
> digital sensors should be treated pretty much
> as slide film; don't blow out the highlights.

Excellent advice! With film, I routinely lowered the ISO by 1/3 stop for
negative film (overexposing) and increased the ISO by 1/3 stop for slides
(underexposing) to get the exposure I desired. The sensors in my Canon
Digitals act very much like slide film in this respect.
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 4:24:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John Francis <johnf@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <10vaangte4mi854@news.supernews.com>,
> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>>John Francis <johnf@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> With negative film, you have the problem of the orange mask, and the
>>> fact that different films have rather different colour profiles.
>>
>>> Reversal film is very simple from a colour standpoint, but can be a
>>> problem on low-end scanners which can't handle the range of
>>> densities.
>>
>>There's a trick I'd like to recommend: over-expose slightly. This
>>lifts shadow detail out of the toe of the density curve of the film.
>>Only a slight adjustment is required. I usually expose ISO 100 film
>>at ISO 80, and this gives good results on a Coolscan 8000.

> I wouldn't call a Coolscan 8000 a low-end scanner. It's should
> have no problem handling just about any film you feed into it.
> (Sure, it's not a Leaf, or an Imacon. But it's a nice unit).

Ah, okay. I was thinking of desktop=low, drum=high. I guess the
Coolscan is in the middle somewhere. But it does have trouble peering
into the shadows.

> I'm also not sure I'd recommend routinely over-exposing slides; if
> you're not careful, you can easily end up with blown highlights, and
> that's going to lose details you'll never be able to recover. (The
> maxim says you should expose for the highlights when shooting
> slides, and expose for the shadows when shooting negative film).
> There again, I know several people who prefer to rate Velvia at 40
> (and even one who rates it at 32). It very much depends on your
> equipment and technique, too; those tricky lighting conditions are
> exactly the situations where different metering methods (such as the
> various multi-pattern modes from different camera brands) produce
> the most variation in suggested exposure. If you're not using the
> built-in metering, but going with a hand-held meter, you're just
> going to learn a different set of heuristic adjustments for when
> (and by how much) you vary from the values it gives you.

Fair enough. My film cameras don't have built-in metering, so a
handheld meter is what I use, and the difference between ISO 100 and
ISO 80 is really pretty small. You'd have to be in a pretty nasty
situation for such a small change to blow highlights that weren't
blown before.

Also, Velvia is evil stuff to scan. I love Astia, which IME seems to
have much better properties for scanning.

> Finally, to drag this back vaguely on-topic (this is, after all, a
> DSLR newsgroup) digital sensors should be treated pretty much as
> slide film; don't blow out the highlights.

Digital is, IME, more sensitive to blown highlights than transparency
film. It doesn't clip "hard" quite as badly...

> Even shooting RAW (which, depending on camera brand, gives you a
> stop or so of extra headroom) isn't going to be enough to help in
> all situations.

Indeed. In fact, as far as I can tell the D1x that I use doesn't have
much extra headroom in raw: the clip level at ISO 125 is the same, raw
or jpg.

Andrew.
!