Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Going back to film!


Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
2 Jul 2012 1:07AM
From the very second you have scanned a negative its become a digital file.

I can`t see any advantages film has over digital but I still use film, guess I just love that smell when you first pop the lid open of the film canister.

Music had the same effect, the smell of freshly pressed vinyl, the rush I got from slipping a record from its sleeve for the very first time and the tingling sensations making the hairs stand up on your arms from the static charged sleeve Smile

Its a good job I haven`t got a foot fetish Smile

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

2 Jul 2012 11:31AM

Quote:Slaughteredlamb, how much of the look you are getting is down to the scanner, as looking at the 1st two images I would say that looks like the colour response of the scanner is a fair part of it. Have you direct prints from negative to compare ?

I found my A570 gave a similar colour response in the underground, like the images BTW.



Strawman, I understand what you are saying but I don't really agree with it. The act of 'converting' from a negative to a positive be that via a scanner or via getting them printed will affect how colour is reproduced. Equally the way the film is developed will affect this too. Therefore there is no 'true' way that a photo shot on a particular emulsion must/should look. Even if I did have a print to compare it against it wouldn't really tell me anything other than that print came out a particular way due to the printer/inks or chemicals used.

The Silverfast software I use with my scanner does have 'presets' for particular emulsions so as to ensure that it reproduces the colours in accordance with that particular stock and also it helps with the infrared dust and scratch removal and yes I did choose the presets for Kodak Ektar 100 and Ilford HP5 accordingly. I have by mistake scanned negs without using a preset and found that yes there was a difference but that it wasn't that great.
I can say though that I did scan these shots on two different scanners, my 35mm scanner and my flatbed scanner. The results were not exactly the same but then I didn't expect them to be as a flatbed scanner simply is never going to achieve the same results that a dedicated 35mm scanner can simply by the laws of optics. The resolution from the 35mm scanner was definitely better but colour wise I'd say they looked very similar to those captured by my 35mm scanner without using an emulsion preset.


It's interesting reading peoples opinions and working methods on here. I understand that some people feel that if you use film you should have a purist approach and develop yourself, dodge and burn in the darkroom and then create your own prints and that by doing any of this in the digital domain means you may as well have shot on digital in the first place. Others take the approach of shoot on film but then everything else is digital because essentially this is doing the same thing as you could do in a darkroom more easily, quickly and non destructively. I really couldn't care less which approach someone took or whether they shot digitally or on a pinhole camera as long as I like the end result!

Ultimately I shoot on film because I want to, I like how it looks, I like the fact that it isn't clinical in the way that digital can be and because I can. As I only shoot for me that is all that matters.
joolsb e2
10 27.1k 38 Switzerland
2 Jul 2012 12:07PM

Quote:The Silverfast software I use with my scanner does have 'presets' for particular emulsions so as to ensure that it reproduces the colours in accordance with that particular stock and also it helps with the infrared dust and scratch removal and yes I did choose the presets for Kodak Ektar 100 and Ilford HP5 accordingly


Interesting. I gave up using presets for inverting negatives because they didn't seem to give very good results. Now I just do a basic positive scan with no colour-management and manage the whole inversion process myself in Photoshop. It's not too difficult and I've put together an action that gets me about 80% of the way there so I only need some small tweaks to get an acceptable conversion.
2 Jul 2012 12:20PM

Quote:The Silverfast software I use with my scanner does have 'presets' for particular emulsions so as to ensure that it reproduces the colours in accordance with that particular stock and also it helps with the infrared dust and scratch removal and yes I did choose the presets for Kodak Ektar 100 and Ilford HP5 accordingly

Interesting. I gave up using presets for inverting negatives because they didn't seem to give very good results. Now I just do a basic positive scan with no colour-management and manage the whole inversion process myself in Photoshop. It's not too difficult and I've put together an action that gets me about 80% of the way there so I only need some small tweaks to get an acceptable conversion.



Were these presets within Silverfast or with another application? I ask simply because I did once use another piece of software, just a trial version but can't remember which, that also offered emulsion presets and found that they were a very hit and miss affair. I'm not a major fan of Silverfast, it's a lot slower than it actually needs to be and it can be clunky for no apparent reason and the technical support is awful (they seem to have the opinion that their software is perfect and don't even allow you to post questions in their forum!), but I have always found their presets to be very accurate and reliable.
keith selmes 11 7.1k 1 United Kingdom
2 Jul 2012 12:45PM

Quote:Therefore there is no 'true' way that a photo shot on a particular emulsion must/should look.
Yes, but the negative is the raw material, and that will vary a lot between emulsions. You can see this especially with transparency film, for example comparing Velvia 50 with Astia 100.
strawman e2
11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
2 Jul 2012 1:16PM
Slaughteredlamb to be honest the process is not so important as long as the person gets the result they want in a way they are happy working with. We are lucky just now that we have the choice of working film or digital or even a mix of both. I like your images and so my question was more out of interest than anything else.
classcams e2
5 117
22 Aug 2012 7:25AM
Cleared out my chest freezer the other day. About 300 rolls of film,color positive and negative and B/W. Also 10 bulk film winders, fully loaded. They have been frozen for about 10 years now,so they should be OK. Trouble is all my chemicals are way past their date. Hey Ho, looks like another trip to the council tip.I can see the tip workers scrambling among the rolls of film.
franken e2
12 3.3k 4 Wales
22 Aug 2012 12:40PM

Quote:Cleared out my chest freezer the other day. About 300 rolls of film,color positive and negative and B/W. Also 10 bulk film winders, fully loaded. They have been frozen for about 10 years now,so they should be OK. Trouble is all my chemicals are way past their date. Hey Ho, looks like another trip to the council tip.I can see the tip workers scrambling among the rolls of film.


Alternatively, buy fresh chemicals?
KenTaylor e2
10 3.0k 2 United Kingdom
22 Aug 2012 1:20PM
Put them on Ebay for a nominal sum.
Always someone somewhere that would be more than pleased to use them.
pentaxpete e2
9 553 1 England
23 Aug 2012 9:51AM
Please tell me WHERE is your COUNCIL TIP -- my Boy and I will visit it !!
KenTaylor e2
10 3.0k 2 United Kingdom
23 Aug 2012 10:23AM

Quote:Please tell me WHERE is your COUNCIL TIP -- my Boy and I will visit it !!


I was thinking of you when I read that Smile
24 Aug 2012 2:16AM
Ahhhh film Smile

I had wondered about my abilities after getting some prints from a small independent shop, colours were a bit washed out. Then during a shooting in the cold a November night, the blades of the lens stuck by the cold, I used the lens cap to stop any more light entering through the blades. I was starting the course and decided to go digital. Then after a year the illness took its toll and damaged my eyesight. I stayed with the digital cause I can see the picture at the back of the camera. Tricky machines, pictures are backlight and look different when developed into prints. You grow old and you learn. Hopefully my eyesight may recover...

I had taken out my manual lenses for a bit of play so blades don't stuck and took the Minolta out to check if the batteries were removed. My current vision can't help me distinguish the third option which I call "sleep" which is a state between On and Off. I held the camera in my hands, such an elegant slim object, no chunky hand grip, no plastics, pure metal. Simple settings, aperture, timing, zoom. When my vision recovers I am shooting the rest of the films in the fridge.
KenTaylor e2
10 3.0k 2 United Kingdom
24 Aug 2012 1:15PM

Quote:Simple settings, aperture, timing, zoom

All that simplicity is now history as modern cameras strive to make them so over complicated insisting they know better than you.

Many moons ago on a summer school course we were told to be so familiar with the camera that you could adjust the settings without looking, even focusing by judging the rotation. Cameras had click stops you could easily feel. No meters or batteries, pure knowledge and experience that stays around even for digital where I shoot on manual only despite having to look at the info display.
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
24 Aug 2012 1:56PM

Quote:Cameras had click stops you could easily feel


Having stops/shutterspeeds/manual focus were complications too much for many in years gone by! All-auto cameras, when they arrived, were regarded by the (non-enthusiast) public as manna from heaven! Wink
photoworks e2
12 317 United Kingdom
28 Aug 2012 3:36PM

Quote:Good luck, and it will be nice to see some results because I have been involved in countless threads about people who say how great film is and how they are about to go back to film or experiment with film and are about to load a film and will post the results soon, but days, weeks and months pass and to date have not ever seen one single repost with images ... I genuinely always hope to see what they achieve.


Here are some images that I have been shooting on film :


http://www.fashionbug.org.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Smile.jpg

http://www.fashionbug.org.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Smirk.jpg

hhttp://www.fashionbug.org.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Monica.jpg

http://www.fashionbug.org.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Smirk.jpg

http://www.fashionbug.org.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Ayana_portrait.jpg

http://www.fashionbug.org.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Stars_and_Stripes.jpg

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.