|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Any other film scannists out there?
I currently shoot film with a vintage Minolta XG-7 SLR and scan with a Konica Minolta Dual IV. I intend this to be a transitional mode of operation until things get established enough to acquire a DSLR. All of my portfolio pics were taken in this manner. I am generally been pleased with the results, but of course the process is time consuming (albeit a labor of love). I consider scanning and post-processing to be a "second shoot" that provides another opportunity to connect with the model. Sometimes models don't understand why they can't preview the picture on the back of the camera! I believe that scanned film has a unique look that can fit a certain niche. I have yet to be able to define what that look is, but aspects include saturated color and very high resolution. I have also observed that the foreground/background separation looks more natural on scanned film as well, and more "compressed" on digital images. Jun 26 05 09:07 am Link Yes. If you are offering all the images on CD then I feel sorry for you. Jun 26 05 09:14 am Link Posted by Jack D Trute: A digital image requires much of the same post-processing as a scanned one, minus the scanning time and spotting. I would estimate that post-process time for a digital image is at least half that of scanned one. Jun 26 05 09:30 am Link Wow, that's amazing. I've assisted on portrait shoots with some guys who people think are really great photographers, just because they shoot pictures for forbes, esquire, and other magazines like that. One of them wasted 12 rolls of 120 film in a 6x4.5 camera just to get one shot for Forbes. Another blew through almost 300 frames to produce a single image of a woman whose costume never changed, nor did her position. Oddly, he knew precisely which image should become the wall-sized poster, took him all of 10 minutes to go through the images on his screen and decide that only one of the images was going to be shown to the client. These guys could clearly learn a lot. Sorry, snark over, but those are both shoots I assisted on. I've been through a dozen or so classes in a photography program, in most cases, you had to submit EVERY image you shot for an assignment. And they checked image numbers to be sure. If you found so little interest in an image that you only shot two or three frames of it, you were told that you blew the gig. All these guys who do this for a living believe that the odds of having the best possible image come out on the first shot is not the sign of a pro, but the sign of a snapshooting amateur who's too easily satisfied to cut it. Don't you ever wonder if shooting from an angle an inch lower might be a better shot? Or shrinking your DOF by an inch or so might make it a better image? The guy shot 300 images of the model because he wanted exactly the precisely perfect expression, with no stray hairs, with perfect costume alignment, with the right eyes to go with the expression. The image that nailed it was about 3/4 of the way through. And this was with two MUA, one stylist, three asistants, a hairdresser, and about five other people whose job seemed to be to do exactly what everyone else told them to. Even guys who shoot pictures of rocks with view cameras will run 10 or so sheets of film to vary where the DOF gets spent, where the zones fall, to try different amounts of reflection into shadows. You might enjoy seeing the Epson Online Experience series, where Vincent Versace shoots 60 or so frames of a trellis of ivy, and finds only two of the images rock. Most people would be happy with all of them. The best photographers aren't great technicians, they're incredibly brutal editors. However, I definitely agree about not showing everything you shoot to a client. You should only give the client the images that take their breath away. One of my favorite Jay Maisel quotes was his answer to a photographer who complained that the client screwed up and ran the wrong image in an ad. "How'd he GET that image? That's who screwed up." No one gets anything until I've edited out the 98% on average that's only good. Jun 26 05 03:50 pm Link Posted by Ed Nazarko: Everyone knows that pro photographers on real commerical gigs with bigtime clients shoot hundreds and thousands of shots. Jun 26 05 04:24 pm Link Posted by Eric Muss-Barnes: Posted by Ed Nazarko: Everyone knows that pro photographers on real commerical gigs with bigtime clients shoot hundreds and thousands of shots. i know a guy in miami..he shot for national geographic on assigment. out of 64 rolls of 36exp film..NG used one image.. Jun 26 05 04:37 pm Link Posted by Doug Swinskey: Posted by Eric Muss-Barnes: i know a guy in miami..he shot for national geographic on assigment. out of 64 rolls of 36exp film..NG used one image.. See? Jun 26 05 04:42 pm Link Costco or Walmart scanned your entire roll of negative and put it on a CD for you, when you process your film. I have never use their service, so I dont know what the resolution of their scanner. Jun 26 05 04:46 pm Link Posted by jpsc: hey jp, why do you have a picture of mike wallace from "60 minutes" as your avatar? Jun 26 05 05:02 pm Link Posted by Doug Swinskey: Posted by jpsc: hey jp, why do you have a picture of mike wallace from "60 minutes" as your avatar? hey that is me!!! When did you shoot me? Jun 26 05 05:09 pm Link I work for a B+W darkroom that handles a lot of fashion and editorial shooters- one of our clients, who is actually the top of the heap for what he does- shoots in excess of 1500-2000 rolls of 120 tri-x per job, He probably does and equal amount of color (though we never see it). From there, his studio edits the contact sheets and we go back and print usually between 400-600 fiber 8x10s that the client finally sees. They then drum scan the fiber 8x10s... I'd kill myself if that were my workflow, granted he has a full staff, a lab full of slaves and a really big impressive name- I do scan film from time to time, but generally I'm shooting Dslr unless I need to shoot medium for one reason or another. My microtek 120tf is collecting dust- bummer too, damn thing cost $1800 2 years ago... J Jun 26 05 06:14 pm Link i am a dual shooter. Both digital and film. From shooting jewelry, I know the two react differently. Not much time to write, more later. Jun 26 05 06:53 pm Link I'm still just film. I was planning on getting a dslr but I just can't fork over $1,100-$1,400 for a body that will probably only work for me for 2-3 years. I KNOW the dslr gives immediate results and that will make tfp and client arrangements easier/folks happier. But... I go through a roll of film (at least) for each shot I'm trying to accomplish. I don't really think of this as machine gun shooting, for me that term is more applied to some who isn't really sure what they want until they find their happy accidents on their editing screen. It's a pain sometimes scanning, scanning scanning and there is (like last year for me when I moved) the possibility that some of my originals get misplaced...but when my computer took a dump on me last month and I lost some work I hadn't backed up...I was way thankful I had the orginals in a nondigital form. I just wish I had a jobo atl to make the film processing easier. Jun 26 05 07:15 pm Link I'm getting a scaner just to save money. Not making a lot of money off photography at the moment stuff tends to cost a lot in the end. But I get the high quality scan's done of my film at the prolab because they'll develope anything (that being any type of film) Jun 26 05 07:23 pm Link On my first assignment, I shot 25 rolls of T-Max and 20 rolls of Ektachrome during a weekend. I thought that was completely excessive, but I couldn't afford to miss anything (documenting a U.S. Army Special Forces field training exercise). The magazine eventually bought four (4) photos and paid for my expenses (woo, woo!). Of course, this was back when I had to mail contact sheets, selected prints, and the original slides to my editor. I'm very, very grateful for the advent of (relatively) affordable digital SLRs, but I'm investing in a film scanner in the near future. I'd like to be able to shoot film when I get the urge, and I also want to digitize some favorite photos from my archives. Jun 26 05 11:12 pm Link Posted by marksora: Mark, I know precisely what you mean about dual shooting, and both react differently. I still drag out the Bronica or F100 bodies from time to time because something in me just KNOWS that it's a film gig. But, I'm not sure if I can articulate why. It'd be interesting to thread about what screams digital and what screams film for people who shoot both. Not which is better, but how people decide which to use. Jun 27 05 07:06 am Link i'm a film shooter. when i started in the biz, just after the dinosaurs kicked the bucket, there was no digital so my sensibilities (on many levels) are different from a lot of younger photographers. i began as a fashion shooter and drifted toward advertising and editorial portraits. now i do that and nudes. all of my fashion mentors shot rolls and rolls of film--all except one. he was economical in his use of film--not because he was cheap, but because he had a pretty good sense of what he wanted and was a good director. a good still photographer is a good director. something i tried to emulate. i also spent a lot of time working with still-life (aka table-top) photographers. this is where i learned the value in taking a photo because it's right--not because you've got film in the camera. a friend of mine who used to assist one of the legends of fashion and still life shoots very little film on a shoot and then gives the clients his picks--and only his picks. but then, he's kind of a god. they don't make motordrive 8x10 deardorfs or sinars, so i learned to shoot intelligently. i run very little film through my camera on most of my jobs. models are amazed--but in all honesty, there's a point that you can hit very quickly where you are just reshooting (or overworking)the same image. i have a few clients that love lots of film so i shoot more for them to make them happy. smithsonian is one. the more the merrier. but since most of the time i'm shooting sheet film or polaroid with a 4x5 i don't go crazy. (of course, i had one real cheap-ass editorial client who used to bitch and moan if i sent him ten 4x5 when i shot a portrait of someone. "I know you can get it in two shots!" yeah, maybe i can, but what would he say when the lab drops my test sheet in the tank and the second one is a so-so expression? ah...but i digress. i really like the look of film. i like handling film. i don't need a machine gun to take pictures. yeah, it's a bit of a pain in the ass to scan, but i only scan the images worth considering and since film is my background i can read a neg without scanning it, making a contact print or proof. when i shoot models for tests/tfp, they appreciate the fact that i use film. the younger ones marvel at it. most of them have never seen a "real" polaroid. imho, those who have never used film are really missing out on an important part of being a photographer. that is, if you want to fully experience the art of photography. i think digital is great. digital technology certainly makes my place smell better because it's not reeking of dektol and acetic acid. One thing i do know is that my film cameras will outlast any digital equipment i will ever own. i've still got a nikon f2 that occasionally sees the light of day! Jun 27 05 08:22 am Link Posted by Bruce Caines: That is one thing I find really scary and true. Sometimes I drag a speed graphic with tri x pushed to 800 because there's a vintage quality that you really struggle to get any other way. or an old voigtlander 6x9, same reason. somehow i can't imagine the same timeline and "vintage look" will apply to old digital cameras. just looking at the pixel-rot on the two old digital cameras i haven't gotten rid of (hot pixels as the sensor shows the effects of age and hard living) makes me acutely aware that both the images and the technology are pretty ephemeral compared to film. Jun 27 05 09:15 am Link Posted by Bruce Caines: This is the truth. Most models love polariods (especially 4x5's) because they are big and can hold them. Unless you've got a digital studio with a giant monitor to preview images, polaroids are more effective than an LCD screen. Jun 27 05 03:12 pm Link I love chrome. Magazines love chrome. They like the fact that they most likely have the only original and are not going to have the same shot given to their competition. I just like the depth and the feel of the rich color you get from film. Scans. even high end 4 pass scans, leave me feeling like I'm missing something in the images. So, I'm a film snob that ends up shooting digital msotly now, just because it's what clients seem to want. I'm a sell out. Jun 27 05 08:15 pm Link When I was a PJ shooting for a Military Public Affairs office, we had an entire closet full of film and the rule of thumb for covering any event was, have twice more film than you think you need in your camera bag and shoot as many rolls as you need. One roll in one camera, I shot in Shutter priority. One roll in 2nd camera, I shot in Aperture priority. One roll in 3rd camera, I shot manual. On some field exercises, where I was on foot, I said phuck the other two cameras and used just the one ran the gamut from manual to program. Lol. There, there were days, I'd get totally bored with the previous arrangements, I'd go through rolls and rolls shooting in manual mode running the gamut of different aperture settings beginning from left to right with the shutter speed set anywhere between 250 to 1000 (2000 didn't exist then). It only took 3 events for me to realize why the other PJ's weren't eating their own advise. Simply, it meant the difference between getting home in time for dinner and a coochie, or being stuck back at the kaserne (garrison) developing all the rolls of film. Yes! I got high so many times in that damn bathroom-turned-film processing lab and stumbled out into the parking lot at 2200 hrs like some guy on Acid and Mad Dog 20-20. In my non-PJ days, with a closet full of canned goods, one can't afford to be, as the dood eloquently put it, "a shotgun shooter". Also, in regards to scanning, I used to do that a lot in my early days until I realized, that my time is money. Nowadays, I just pull up into Walgreens, or Longs and have them transfer my film onto CD. The resulting average dimensions of the images on CD are 1228x1818 with a filesize of 1.13M, RGB and a Bit Depth of 8. For both the web and for prints, this has proved feasable. Plus, I still have the film. So, if I needed to, I'd take the negs over to a pro lab and have them print it out. Already, this approach has saved me both time and money since each CD (no prints) cost around $2 to $3 something. Jun 27 05 08:57 pm Link Im scanning all my film negs on my Imacon 848. Nice piece of gear...way expensive. Killer results. But I am all about the print, where as many just need web images. While I'm heavy on the digital slr's, I still shoot about 15% b&w film and slide stuff. Speed up to 100 Mb per min. Resolution 8000 dpi Active CCD cooling (noise reduction) True 16 bit color â 4.8 Dmax in a single pass scanning http://www.imacon.dk/sw172.asp I will always love film. Jun 27 05 09:35 pm Link Posted by KM von Seidl: I've shot over a hundred models in the last four years. Figure three rolls of film per model at $20/roll and my D60 has been paid for many times over. Jun 27 05 10:20 pm Link Posted by Paul Ferrara: Posted by KM von Seidl: I've shot over a hundred models in the last four years. Figure three rolls of film per model at $20/roll and my D60 has been paid for many times over. I'm sure it makes sense for you. I think if I was shooting primarily model portfolios or if I was a commercial photographer having to cater to clients it would make sense as well. Hell, in that case I would be amortizing it so who cares at that point. Jun 27 05 11:55 pm Link Posted by Capt Stu Beans: Way Expensive i Bet!! Jul 06 05 08:52 pm Link Posted by rp_photo: rp-photo. I would say that this third segment of my 30 year magazine and commercial photography career in Vancouver is a success because of what I call (your method) a hybrid system that is the best of both worlds. I shoot 6x7cm slide film (or b+w neg) and immediately scan the slides or b+w prints (I print from my negatives) with an extremely obsolete but still wonderful Epson 1640 SU. They don't tell you that scanning two and a quarter slides is a snap with a flatbed. I satisfy all the magazines I work for across Canada with my home scans. I need to do littl spotting and dust removal. FedEx used to come to my house three times a week. Now I just don't see them anmore. For most editorial needs I can send 8 meg files by email. Why would I want to switch to a DSLR? And I concur. I shoot very little, I am frugal (but I do shoot Polaroids). Jul 07 05 12:50 am Link Posted by Ed Nazarko: I shot an ad for McDonald's. They needed 1 shot of the model and I was shooting 120 film. After about 4 rolls, I said that should do it. The art director turned to me and said, when you shoot for us, we require no less then 12-15 rolls of film. So I say that to say, when you shoot commercial images on film, art directors alot of times want the added insurance that they will have what they need even though they are only using one image. So what you called wasted, I see as normal. Ever go to a commercial film lab? Check out the number of rolls being dropped off per person. Just something to think about. Jul 08 05 04:34 pm Link Posted by alexwh: All depends on what you shoot. I'm shooting some documentary stuff for a not for profit right now, homeless families who are busting their butts in a tough program to get them into owning their own home. The last thing they want is someone calling attention to their embarrassment about where they've been - what's in it for them? With a DSLR, I can casually pop a few images while we're chatting at first meeting, show them what I've got, talk about why we're shooting, and suddenly they're open to anything. Same experience in third world countries - showing the image on the back of the camera opens up gobs of opportunities, and the longer you shoot, the deeper you get into the culture or personal lives for documentary work. Jul 08 05 07:23 pm Link |
