p.1 #1 · What is the point of digitally post-processing film?
This might be a dumb question but what is the point of digitally post-processing film?
I started dabbling into film photography since I have a set of Leica M lenses I can just use with a film camera. However, as I got into this rabbit hole, I was reading about how certain films are good for scanning and digital post-processing.
I'm curious what are the benefits of going through the trouble of doing this vs just using a digital filter? For me, part of my interest in film is because I'm looking for strong out of camera images that is developed on paper and not have to go through a bunch of steps to finally get it on paper.
p.1 #2 · What is the point of digitally post-processing film?
...because most people do not have a darkroom and/or want to go down that route?
It is nice that you have the time to do it but I have no interested in film development (certainly not for a standard process like C41), no space for it, not time for it. As much as I would like to do wet printing (I did ages ago), I do not have space in the house for it, I do not have a local facility to use and I certainly do not have the time for it.
So, some very nice scans from a lab and my Epson SCP800 let me print as much as want.
Also, you say "digitally post-processing film". There is a different in scanning and then printing vs scanning, doing all sorts of post-processing transformations and then printing. The scans I get are basically what gets printed with maybe just a bit of straigthen/crop (just like you'd do with paper in a darkroom) or adjusting exposure a bit (just like you'd do in a darkroom).
p.1 #3 · What is the point of digitally post-processing film?
If you have any experience with traditional darkroom printing, you'll know that there's a lot of "postprocessing" involved: everything from adjusting contrast to dodging and burning, and so on. Even the choice of paper can be considered analogous to digital postprocessing.
Digital postprocessing can be kept within the general bounds of traditional darkroom techniques or you can use film scans as a jumping-off point for much more radical digital manipulation of colours, textures, etc. There are no rules and no boundaries, you can do what you like. Some digital artists like to start with a film scan because the film gives them a different starting point compared with a digital image captured in a digital camera, and it suggests different directions for their postprocessing.
When I scan negatives I scan them as flat as possible to give me the freedom to adjust contrast, black and white points, etc. in post. The resulting images still look like they were shot on film; an acquaintance of mine who has taught darkroom photography at NYU was convinced my scans were of silver gelatine prints. I develop my own B&W film (using a changing bag to get the film onto the reel, the rest can be done in daylight) but have no space for a darkroom and nowhere to hang or store prints. So I scan my negatives.
He could have done all that with photos taken with a digital camera, but the film scans gave him a different starting point and suggested edits and directions he might not have thought of otherwise.
p.1 #4 · What is the point of digitally post-processing film?
tzhang4284 wrote:
This might be a dumb question but what is the point of digitally post-processing film?
Genuinely curious why people do this.
For me, even though I do have a full B&W darkroom that can handle developing from 35mm through 8x10 film, and printing to 20x24 inches, the ability to fine-tailor a pseudo-digital negative can give me both a creative and technical edge. Localized geometric corrections, ease of burning/dodging, and selective noise reduction/sharpening all get added to the toolbox...
p.1 #5 · What is the point of digitally post-processing film?
When I was printing in the darkroom, it was a paper consuming process. The 5x7s were proofs, but enlargements were experiments with dodging and burning (and maybe contrast), and sometimes the image had to hang on a wall for a while before I'd go back and "improve" the printing.
If I print again in the darkroom (I have one), I'll produce a digital negative and contact print. Paper is now too expensive to use say 10 pieces to produce a good print, and once I got a good print, I'd try to make a few extra. Also, some sessions in the darkroom were a bust. Sometimes things would go well and sometimes it was frustration. (e.g. use enough developer or a method of replenishing so it doesn't change activity.)
I keep threatening to start inkjet printing (BW), but I have yet to set up the printer even though I own the inks.
p.1 #6 · What is the point of digitally post-processing film?
Lots of reasonable questions, like, isn’t digitizing film just another digital image? Well, yes it is. When I look on Flickr at my film images it shows which camera captured the image of the negative. Sounds like you are talking about shooting Portra. Portra was designed to be somewhat flat/mute right out of the development process. Should you like more saturation, that can easily be accumulated in post. Then you ask, why not just shoot Ektar? Good question and the answer is simple, Ektar might fit the taste of many, myself included..just one step behind Velvia, but skin tones aren’t always great, so in a mixed environment of portraiture in a desired setting, you might not want Ektar skin tones. It is easier to get things right with Portra vs. altering Ektar skin tones in post.
p.1 #7 · What is the point of digitally post-processing film?
While I can dial in a film curve to match the paper curve, I have no intention of doing this for all the films I shoot as long as I am satisfied with the results I get from a simple curve adjustment.
And editing dust/spot/scratch, while not always needed, sure is easier digitally.
The analog/organic look of film can be preserved perfectly in digital post processing when done right.
p.1 #8 · What is the point of digitally post-processing film?
jay w wrote:
When I was printing in the darkroom, it was a paper consuming process. The 5x7s were proofs, but enlargements were experiments with dodging and burning (and maybe contrast), and sometimes the image had to hang on a wall for a while before I'd go back and "improve" the printing.
If I print again in the darkroom (I have one), I'll produce a digital negative and contact print. Paper is now too expensive to use say 10 pieces to produce a good print, and once I got a good print, I'd try to make a few extra. Also, some sessions in the darkroom were a bust. Sometimes things would go well and sometimes it was frustration. (e.g. use enough developer or a method of replenishing so it doesn't change activity.)
I keep threatening to start inkjet printing (BW), but I have yet to set up the printer even though I own the inks. ...Show more →
p.1 #9 · What is the point of digitally post-processing film?
The point, for me, is convenience. I only do the adjustments that one would do in a darkroom. It's easier and faster than doing everything with the enlarger, and I can make digital backups. I outsource my digital printing.
I use my enlarger every once in a while. Choosing when to use it is a deliberate choice. The amount of time and effort required to use it is considerable.
p.1 #10 · What is the point of digitally post-processing film?
Thanks for all the input - I guess I never really considered darkroom work before which I think makes sense that digital is a substitute for that. When I was younger, I remembered film just coming back from the film lab ready to go so I guess I'm looking for more of an out of camera experience vs. doing work but if you are using digital as a replacement for darkroom work already, this makes a lot of sense!
p.1 #12 · What is the point of digitally post-processing film?
bjhurley wrote:
You can still get lab prints from your film photos, but guess how 99.9% of labs make prints today: from digital scans.
I’m not surprised - the first roll of film I got back printed from the lab had a different look and feel to what I remembered from my childhood. It is what it is.
p.1 #13 · What is the point of digitally post-processing film?
Interesting discussion. It strikes me that there is secondary issue here. How do/will people view the pics you/we take? Before computer and then phone screens became ubiquitous the only way to view a picture was as a print or a projected transparency. High quality prints (not newsprint) had to be distributed physically or hung on a wall or in a frame, viewed by only a few at a time. Once digital pics became convenient people could distribute them more or less at will and view them anywhere. The viewing of today far outnumbers the viewing of yesterday.
So when you prep a picture you are more likely to consider how the digital image appears as well as how the print appears. If you (the OP) are interested in only a strong printed image, then whatever technique works for you is fine. Most of us (or at least most of me) distribute everything digitally and have no access to the techniques of printing anyway. Even if we/I did produce prints, the digital distribution is too important to ignore. Ya' gotta' do it anyway.
p.1 #17 · What is the point of digitally post-processing film?
tzhang4284 wrote:
Thanks for all the input - I guess I never really considered darkroom work before which I think makes sense that digital is a substitute for that. When I was younger, I remembered film just coming back from the film lab ready to go so I guess I'm looking for more of an out of camera experience vs. doing work but if you are using digital as a replacement for darkroom work already, this makes a lot of sense!
Most people I knew didn't have access to a wet darkroom they just did what you described.
I am not sure if they are still this way. But the icons in photoshop for "dodging" and "burning" were a lollypop and a hand forming an "o". Those were the tools and technique you use in a wet darkroom to decrease or increase exposure to a print as you expose it.
It's probably easier if you just look that up, I probably didn't explain that well.
p.1 #18 · What is the point of digitally post-processing film?
KankRat wrote:
Most people I knew didn't have access to a wet darkroom they just did what you described.
I am not sure if they are still this way. But the icons in photoshop for "dodging" and "burning" were a lollypop and a hand forming an "o". Those were the tools and technique you use in a wet darkroom to decrease or increase exposure to a print as you expose it.
It's probably easier if you just look that up, I probably didn't explain that well.
Yeh I really doubt the majority of people that scan their film then process the digital image really had any experience in the darkroom. Most shot film, dropped it off at the drug stores and got back 4x6 prints that they either put into an album or stored in a shoe box.
p.1 #19 · What is the point of digitally post-processing film?
chez wrote:
Yeh I really doubt the majority of people that scan their film then process the digital image really had any experience in the darkroom. Most shot film, dropped it off at the drug stores and got back 4x6 prints that they either put into an album or stored in a shoe box.
I was the family darkroom assistant as a kid and printed hundreds of photos in our home darkroom. But I don't think that experience has any bearing on my ability to edit my scans. It's a different process.
The majority of people who drive cars never do their own maintenance or repairs, they take the car to a garage. Does that mean they can't drive?
The majority of people who use computers never built their own from parts. Does that mean they don't know how to use a computer?
The majority of people who eat chicken or beef never raised and slaughtered their own chickens or cattle, and most people who eat vegetables never grew their own. Does that mean they don't know how to eat their food?
p.1 #20 · What is the point of digitally post-processing film?
bjhurley wrote:
I was the family darkroom assistant as a kid and printed hundreds of photos in our home darkroom. But I don't think that experience has any bearing on my ability to edit my scans. It's a different process.
The majority of people who drive cars never do their own maintenance or repairs, they take the car to a garage. Does that mean they can't drive?
The majority of people who use computers never built their own from parts. Does that mean they don't know how to use a computer?
The majority of people who eat chicken or beef never raised and slaughtered their own chickens or cattle, and most people who eat vegetables never grew their own. Does that mean they don't know how to eat their food?
Calm down and actually read what I was replying to. One of the members indicated he did not even realize the image processing step was done in the darkroom pre-digital days because he never had any experience in the darkroom and just got things done in the drug store. I was just commenting that the majority of people today had no experience in the darkroom.
Where did I say the people don’t know what they are doing digitally processing images..sheesh.
You seem to be wound up a little tight this evening. I suggest a glass of Merlot and read before writing.
