sportback
Well-Known Member
This is meant to follow on from my thread regarding the choice of using colour negative or transparency films for scanning purposes – it’s just a personal impression of ‘my’ current state of affairs…Many thanks to all of you who have taken the time and trouble to answer my previous post.
I’m a keen amateur photographer who lives in a rural area – which means I don’t have fast access to labs etc. I am not completely computer illiterate, and have the equipment and programs sufficiently powerful to ‘treat’ large image files. I am not prepared to reinvent the wheel and build a wet darkroom (Again!) but and I am also firmly convinced that the quality of my MF photographic equipment is way beyond my needs – which means I want to keep using it.
So what exactly am I looking for?
An image file with sufficient dynamic range, that I can treat with a computer. This is what made me ‘look’ back at scanned film, but now I’m wondering, as there are just so many variables that come into play.
1: Choice of film – very much influenced by my ability to take meter readings/cross linked with the latitude of the film itself.
2: Treatment of the film – I have to develop it, and regardless of E-6 or C-41, the temperature considerations are of prime importance. Repeatability is the key, and without really accurate temperature control, it is too hit and miss.
3: Digital versus film - With the advent of the CFV-39, is there really that much difference between the two, and will I get the same tonal range on a digital file as on film? For my needs (As an amateur) the answer is probably yes.
Frankly, and based on the fact that I am keeping my 501/CF series lenses, I am leaning more and more towards a huge investment…this won’t be for a while as I have a fair amount of film stock to use up, and I admit I still enjoy the pleasure of developing a film etc. but the inconsistencies due to temperature and exposure are leading me to rethink my initial reluctance to ‘invest’…
I’m a keen amateur photographer who lives in a rural area – which means I don’t have fast access to labs etc. I am not completely computer illiterate, and have the equipment and programs sufficiently powerful to ‘treat’ large image files. I am not prepared to reinvent the wheel and build a wet darkroom (Again!) but and I am also firmly convinced that the quality of my MF photographic equipment is way beyond my needs – which means I want to keep using it.
So what exactly am I looking for?
An image file with sufficient dynamic range, that I can treat with a computer. This is what made me ‘look’ back at scanned film, but now I’m wondering, as there are just so many variables that come into play.
1: Choice of film – very much influenced by my ability to take meter readings/cross linked with the latitude of the film itself.
2: Treatment of the film – I have to develop it, and regardless of E-6 or C-41, the temperature considerations are of prime importance. Repeatability is the key, and without really accurate temperature control, it is too hit and miss.
3: Digital versus film - With the advent of the CFV-39, is there really that much difference between the two, and will I get the same tonal range on a digital file as on film? For my needs (As an amateur) the answer is probably yes.
Frankly, and based on the fact that I am keeping my 501/CF series lenses, I am leaning more and more towards a huge investment…this won’t be for a while as I have a fair amount of film stock to use up, and I admit I still enjoy the pleasure of developing a film etc. but the inconsistencies due to temperature and exposure are leading me to rethink my initial reluctance to ‘invest’…