Firstcall offering Digital to 35mm

  • Thread starter Deleted member 95430
  • Start date
acrobatic_Citron said:
www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk

Firstcall Transfer 36 digital images back to 35mm film

Write your digital images on to film to print in your own darkroom
www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk

This is neat. I know its used in Hollywood on big scales and Id reckon its better than a digital neg from a home pc

Exciting!
Click to expand...
That looks interesting. I’d be tempted to give it a go as I have just bought a 35mm enlarger, could be cool to be able to print some digital photos on it
 
Right! Although id end up wanting to print them all and itd take forever!
 
side tracking:- Just looking at their price for fuji 400iso 35mm 36 exp and it's £14.99 o_O :rolleyes:
 
Without wishing to start any ruckus: could anyone explain why they'd want to copy a digital image onto film?

It seems like a strange thing to do these days but perhaps there's something obvious that I'm missing.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Without wishing to start any ruckus: could anyone explain why they'd want to copy a digital image onto film?

It seems like a strange thing to do these days but perhaps there's something obvious that I'm missing.
Click to expand...
Same here, I don’t understand the purpose of it….
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Without wishing to start any ruckus: could anyone explain why they'd want to copy a digital image onto film?

It seems like a strange thing to do these days but perhaps there's something obvious that I'm missing.
Click to expand...
Gives someone the chance to play with darkroom techniques on their favourite photo (and get away from the wife and kids for a few hours).

I doubt it would make a modern digital camera look like film (but I know very little about film stuff).
 
Yeah pretty much just so you can wet print your digital pictures. Some people prefer the control/look of silver gelatin paper and I myself enjoy the darkroom but devving my film is a pain in the arse/boring pour moi
 
Erty said:
:LOL: Gives someone the chance to play with darkroom techniques on their favourite photo (and get away from the wife and kids for a few hours).

I doubt it would make a modern digital camera look like film (but I know very little about film stuff).
Click to expand...
Well if it’s to get away from wife and kids it makes sense
acrobatic_Citron said:
Yeah pretty much just so you can wet print your digital pictures. Some people prefer the control/look of silver gelatin paper and I myself enjoy the darkroom but devving my film is a pain in the arse/boring pour moi
Click to expand...
It just looks cheaper to just send the film to be developed. But then again i suppose if you’ve got a really good digi pic that need to analogue-ify it makes sense(not for me though)
 
acrobatic_Citron said:
Right! Although id end up wanting to print them all and itd take forever!
Click to expand...
Yea, it’s not cheap either. I think I’d save it for a holiday
Marino said:
Well if it’s to get away from wife and kids it makes sense

It just looks cheaper to just send the film to be developed. But then again i suppose if you’ve got a really good digi pic that need to analogue-ify it makes sense(not for me though)
Click to expand...
it is cheaper to send film off but I suppose you have control over what appears on the roll. You won’t have any photos that aren’t focused properly. You could also do some edits on photos, remove blemishes on peoples faces or clone something out. I am tempted to try it but I’d only do for some select photos and I wouldn’t make a habit of it, probably just once to have a go.
I like making prints in the darkroom but part of it is that it’s from film. I have a feeling that once I’d got the digital files on a pc I’d be more inclined to edit them and just send them off to be printed.
 
Bayeux in London do this as well, you can have negatives made up to 10x8.

As for why, making handprints is one reason - I find there’s still a marked difference between handprint and an c-type from a digital scan. Not necessarily better but different enough to prefer one over the other depending on application, for example if you have a project that uses different formats you can use this internegative process to standardise everything before you head into the print stage. Sebastiao Salagado’s Genesis is an example of this, the exhibition was a mix of gelatin prints from 645 negs and digital files from Canon DSLRs.

Another use case is having a time proven method of backing up those *really* important images, especially if you work on long term projects and you want to have a master set of files locked in, in addition to the usual hard drive + cloud backups.

I have a few digital files that would be perfect for this, will make a thread when I get around to doing it.

Here’s a good video on it as well:
View: https://youtu.be/1VrS2RHbrmQ?si=Oad5Cxg-7R8sETWb
 
Last edited:
Why not just place a digital projector on a stand and project a negative image onto the paper?
 
Sangoma said:
As I understood it, the purpose was to print in your own darkroom
Click to expand...

A digital projector would create more issues than a 35mm enlarger I think, you have to mount it, its not designed for that type of projection, bulb brightness, ensuring its parallel to base etc. Then I have no idea on filtration contract etc
 
I've seen some discussion about digital enlargers. Some commercial units were made but most were do it yourself projects.

Search for "digital enlarger" and quite a lot will come up.
 
Heh, they do slide film too. Cool idea. Would make for a fun project - thanks for the headsup!
 
Really make no sense if you prefer the look of film why not just use film ! I must admit most of my Photos are digital this is because I'm a cheap skate and have to spread my money over two many hobbies and am the only worker in my house hold. this would be even more expensive ! Baffled
 
acrobatic_Citron said:
A digital projector would create more issues than a 35mm enlarger I think, you have to mount it, its not designed for that type of projection, bulb brightness, ensuring its parallel to base etc. Then I have no idea on filtration contract etc
Click to expand...
I think the issued would be the same, just the solutions would be different.

Well of course they are not made for that use, but none made in the last years care what position they operate in.

Filters and brightness would be on the PC driving it and/or the projectors menu.

Yes, for someone used to a 35mm enlarger, it would be different.

It would eliminate the need to make negatives :)
 
Marino said:
Same here, I don’t understand the purpose of it….
Click to expand...
Probably to severely degrade it in multiple ways, i.e. to create "fine art" and charge like millions for it; which also depends on you being in that money laundering club
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
Really make no sense if you prefer the look of film why not just use film ! I must admit most of my Photos are digital this is because I'm a cheap skate and have to spread my money over two many hobbies and am the only worker in my house hold. this would be even more expensive ! Baffled
Click to expand...

For me its another option in the artists/photographers toolbox - I can take advantage of all the great current auto focus bells whistles of digital cameras and transform it into a silver gelatin print. The more options the better I say!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top