To PP or keep as is?...

Cg_Girl

Cg_Girl

Jamie Oliver's best friend.
Messages
11,487
Name
T.
Edit My Images
Yes
So pretty much as titled... how many of you when shooting film keep it to the basics and don't do anything? Or do you treat ALL your photos the same and PP regardless of whether its film or digital and if so do you have different limits, like real basic for film and fill ya boots for digital? :banana:I assumed it taboo to be honest but reading the odd thread i think i maybe wrong?

Sorry if this has been asked, i did go back and do random page searches to have a look...
 
I lightly PP most photos. The interpretation that the scanner does is rarely exactly the same as what I want from the negative - I modify in the darkroom to match what I want (usually increased contrast, deep blacks), so I match it with my film scans.

It's not taboo at all. It's your photos, you can do whatever you want with them. If you want to modify them to convey a certain thing, then so be it.
 
PP is a necessary part of using film, when you scan it it'll come out fairly low contrast and slightly soft (similar to a RAW file) as when doing conventional optical printing the paper adds contrast into the (usually) naturally low-contrast negative, and obviously the scan doesn't do this so you need to add some contrast in. I have no problem with doing more extensive editing as most digital effects originated in the darkroom anyway (e.g removing objects, compositing etc), but I'll usually keep it to just the basic levels, curves and dust/scratch removal.
 
I have recently just started altering some brightness levels but thats pretty much it.
maybe a tiny bit of contrast.
 
So theoretically if i could send the same film roll ( i know not possible) to 2 or 3 different labs i would more than likely get different results?.. i don't really know much about how the darkroom side of it works as yet but i like the idea of being able to control it myself that way, maybe one day...

At the moment my first roll i put up straight from the scan and didn't touch, i'd like to think with film i'd keep PP to a minimum to carry on making me think but i'm sure i'll end up maybe doing the odd bit on some perhaps
 
s162216 said:
PP is a necessary part of using film, when you scan it it'll come out fairly low contrast and slightly soft (similar to a RAW file) as when doing conventional optical printing the paper adds contrast into the (usually) naturally low-contrast negative, and obviously the scan doesn't do this so you need to add some contrast in. I have no problem with doing more extensive editing as most digital effects originated in the darkroom anyway (e.g removing objects, compositing etc), but I'll usually keep it to just the basic levels, curves and dust/scratch removal.
Click to expand...



I assumed the soft bit was my f up!! lol.. i must admit i really wanted to increase the contrast in some of my images...
 
I think come to agree the scanner is the weak link its why i like black and white so much.
 
Digitally I often processed a lot..... although I rarely PP'd my bird images
With film though, I do seem to process a lot less, but then I've only just started scanning my own, and even then it's basic stuff like sharpen..... and I only mainly increase contrast, as I like contrasty images(which is mainly for black and white).
 
I don't do much with mine - usually only what I could, like someone else said, do in the dark room. Playing with contrast, dodging and burning and the likes. Not much at all.
 
Cg_Girl said:
So theoretically if i could send the same film roll ( i know not possible) to 2 or 3 different labs i would more than likely get different results?.. i don't really know much about how the darkroom side of it works as yet but i like the idea of being able to control it myself that way, maybe one day...

At the moment my first roll i put up straight from the scan and didn't touch, i'd like to think with film i'd keep PP to a minimum to carry on making me think but i'm sure i'll end up maybe doing the odd bit on some perhaps
Click to expand...

To be honest these days theres very little actual 'darkroom' work as you might think: rather than exposing the paper through the negative (the traditional optical method) 99.99% of labs scan the negatives and apply contrast, sharpening etc before outputting the scanned images on the same light sensitive paper, but with an RGB laser or LEDs instead. Whilst some argue that there is a massive difference between the old and the new methods, in my opinion any differences are minimal.

Yes 2 or 3 different labs would give slightly different results based on the equipment they use, and also who operates the lab. A lot of highstreet/supermarket labs just leave the whole chain in full auto which can give very good results, but it can also be confused. Thats where those having staff that do manual adjustments tend to do better as they can leave the computer to do the job, yet take over when theres something clearly wrong etc, or handled the whole lot individually if they want, and this the reason why pro labs tend to give better scans/prints as they'll have staff who are better trained/experienced. This does of course also give the human subjection aspect to a scan/print, as has existed since the darkroom came about. You can print a negative in hundreds of ways, just like you can edit a digital image: Amsel Adams for instance used to print some of his negatives hundreds of times in different ways.
 
Hmm ok thank you Samuel that makes sense regarding who does the scans etc, I'll be interested to see how my next roll comes out, i find Photography company in one of the towns here but they send them away, i might find out who they send them off to and then find who i like better, the only other option is max speilman but i had some prints (digital ones)from them ages ago, think they were snappy snaps?? and they came back awful....
 
Solo man said:
Digitally I often processed a lot..... although I rarely PP'd my bird images
With film though, I do seem to process a lot less, but then I've only just started scanning my own, and even then it's basic stuff like sharpen..... and I only mainly increase contrast, as I like contrasty images(which is mainly for black and white).
Click to expand...
toadstool said:
I don't do much with mine - usually only what I could, like someone else said, do in the dark room. Playing with contrast, dodging and burning and the likes. Not much at all.
Click to expand...
Nguss said:
For me only contrast adjustments and the never-ending nightmare that is dust spotting.
Click to expand...


Digital i often processed alot, maybe too much sometimes, I would like to keep it to a minimum with film but upping contrast and small bits are a possibility, looking at the one i messed about with from the other day it gives it a little added oomph!
 
I do whatever needs doing whether its film or digital. Ansel Adams could spend weeks in the darkroom getting a print exactly how he saw it in his mind and post processing has been going on almost as long as photography itself so knock yerself out kiddo(y) :p don't know what happened with the tongue out smiley it just appeared and won't go away.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cg_Girl said:
Digital i often processed alot, maybe too much sometimes, I would like to keep it to a minimum with film but upping contrast and small bits are a possibility, looking at the one i messed about with from the other day it gives it a little added oomph!
Click to expand...

I'm a heavy PPer with digital, too. Not only is film more fun - it's a relief!
 
Yep - all that matters is the final image. Get there by any means.

However, having said that, I find that if I have to do a lot of pp, other than accounting for low contrast scans, I probably messed up the exposure.
 
Andysnap said:
I do whatever needs doing whether its film or digital. Ansel Adams could spend weeks in the darkroom getting a print exactly how he saw it in his mind and post processing has been going on almost as long as photography itself so knock yerself out kiddo(y):p don't know what happened with the tongue out smiley it just appeared and won't go away.
Click to expand...


:LOL: ..:p back at ya!... It's been along time since i was called kiddo so you can stay!.....

I nearly didn't ask the question to be honest but i'm glad i did because everything you've all said makes sense, ie Ansel Adams and the whole principle of how etc.... :D

toadstool said:
I'm a heavy PPer with digital, too. Not only is film more fun - it's a relief!
Click to expand...

Actually yeah i totally get what you are saying, i'm happy to do basics but i like the idea of it just keeping it at that
 
Andysnap said:
I do whatever needs doing whether its film or digital. Ansel Adams could spend weeks in the darkroom getting a print exactly how he saw it in his mind and post processing has been going on almost as long as photography itself so knock yerself out kiddo(y)
Click to expand...

:plus1:
 
Whatever needs to be done to get it how I want it, might be nothing, might be a mammoth Ansel Adams style processing fest.
 
If you're gonna scan film and then alter it digitally to the max, there hardly seems any point shooting it in the first place.
 
joxby said:
If you're gonna scan film and then alter it digitally to the max, there hardly seems any point shooting it in the first place.
Click to expand...

I get that totally and i didn't want to go mad, hence finding out peoples opinion, i've only just shot my first roll and would like to keep it to a minimum, like i said my first roll i didn't touch when i posted but did have a play with contrast and minor stuff earlier just to see the difference.
 
joxby said:
If you're gonna scan film and then alter it digitally to the max, there hardly seems any point shooting it in the first place.
Click to expand...

Ooh, that's really got me thinking.

On the one hand I totally disagree. We can all do whatever we want, however we want, in any medium we want.

I shoot film, not because it's better or anything like that. It's just another medium for creating images.

But, I shoot film because I prefer the process. Part of that process, for me anyway, is taking the time and effort to get it as correct as possible. So, with that in mind, I agree with you.

Again though, for me, it's not about whether there's a point or not; it's about how I feel about it. I aim for minimal pp most of the time but if I choose to do a lot of pp, I'm happy with that too.
 
joxby said:
If you're gonna scan film and then alter it digitally to the max, there hardly seems any point shooting it in the first place.
Click to expand...

simon ess said:
Ooh, that's really got me thinking.

On the one hand I totally disagree. We can all do whatever we want, however we want, in any medium we want.

I shoot film, not because it's better or anything like that. It's just another medium for creating images.

But, I shoot film because I prefer the process. Part of that process, for me anyway, is taking the time and effort to get it as correct as possible. So, with that in mind, I agree with you.

Again though, for me, it's not about whether there's a point or not; it's about how I feel about it. I aim for minimal pp most of the time but if I choose to do a lot of pp, I'm happy with that too.
Click to expand...



You know that is a good answer, Joxby's original post was what made me ask the question in the first place, as i had heard similar before, yet seeing a few comments on images here and there got me thinking as to how true it was and the whys etc.....

For me getting in to film is the excitement it made me feel every time i either saw an old camera or thought about giving it a try, the going back to waiting and making me think before i took each photo...

I also think by making me think it will make me learn the camera be it film or digital that bit better, as i really don't know the technicals very well at all, i feel more excited by film and that in itself will make me learn so i don't want to the PP the hell out of an image because i've been lax knowing i can correct it... if that makes sense?

There will always be a time know doubt when i will do something wacky though occasionally:banana:
 
There are 12 people on my photogrpahy evening class, and if you gave the same negative to each one of us and asked us to print it, you would get 12 different results. Most would be ony slightly different, but the two at the extremes would be very different. The same would apply to 12 digital users all given the same RAW file to edit.

I'm in the lucky position of having access to a darkroom, so I can print my negatives the way I want them. But when I do scan negatives to digital, I find it tempting to do more PP than I do in the darkroom. For the simple reason it is easy. Darkroom PP for contrast, exposure, dodging and burning is easy. But cloniing, retouching and many other effects that are sooooo easy in photoshop, but are way way beyond my skill level in the darkroom.

Not sure what point I am trying to make here, but I do agree with Joxby that too much PP on a scanned negative brings into question the point of shooting film in the first place.
 
Cg_Girl said:
Hmm ok thank you Samuel that makes sense regarding who does the scans etc, I'll be interested to see how my next roll comes out, i find Photography company in one of the towns here but they send them away, i might find out who they send them off to and then find who i like better, the only other option is max speilman but i had some prints (digital ones)from them ages ago, think they were snappy snaps?? and they came back awful....
Click to expand...

You would be better off looking at sending your films off to a lab, I use Club 35 in London for my C-41 (colour negative) as they always do any excellent job for a very reasonable price (I only tend to get dev and prints though as I have that love of just flicking through them, and scan my own after if there are any I like)

http://www.club35.co.uk/cd.html
 
I always end up on the same photo v image infinity loop during these discussions...o_O
 
s162216 said:
You would be better off looking at sending your films off to a lab, I use Club 35 in London for my C-41 (colour negative) as they always do any excellent job for a very reasonable price (I only tend to get dev and prints though as I have that love of just flicking through them, and scan my own after if there are any I like)

http://www.club35.co.uk/cd.html
Click to expand...


Thanks i'll give them a try once i've finished this roll, I guess the next thing on my list will be to save and invest in a scanner
clear.png
 
I learned the technical side of it on a film camera and the first time I ever processed a photo was in a darkroom - it's given me the mindset that I have in regards to processing film photos digitally now. Of course, others will have learned the same way and have a different mindset! I'll have my own dev kit again once I can stop myself from buying another new camera... packed it all in when I had daily use of a fully equipped darkroom :runaway: my GAS has been pretty much non-existant with digital. With film? I struggle to control myself :LOL:
 
joxby said:
I always end up on the same photo v image infinity loop during these discussions...o_O
Click to expand...

I'm struggling to understand what that means. But then I'm not aware of the other discussions you refer to.

For me it's all about the final image someone chooses to reveal to the big, wide world. Call it whatever you like.

I prefer, at the moment, to get as good an image as possible onto film with as little pp as possible.

If I suddenly decide to exploit the full possibility of darkroom wizardry, although like Steve, my skill set precludes that, so what?

If I decide to unleash the full power of digital wizardry on a film negative, again, so what?

I genuinely don't understand the V bit. Sorry.
 
Go nuts on them. A Negative isn't a finished image, you have to make adjustments and allowances when wet printing, especially so when shooting colour as colour differs wildly with exposure and requires balancing during the print stage. I usually scan B&W in positive, invert it with a custom curve in lightroom and then it auto. That usually gives something within the right range and maintains a consistent look whilst not filtering out the film's natural characteristics. With colour I let the Minolta software auto level at scan, usually that's all that's required but if it's a proper job I'd balance and grade it properly the same as I would a digital Rawfile, again all in Lightroom.
 
simon ess said:
I genuinely don't understand the V bit. Sorry.
Click to expand...


I feel a photograph and an image are different things.

In my digital days when I was shooting product, I had to do a lot of post, so much so that I don't actually view them as photos, just images.
Whether I liked them or not doesn't matter, they were created for someone else who hardly cared about the difference, they just wanted a perfect image for their catalogue.

Now that its my choice what I do, I wanna shoot photos not images, film lends itself more readily to that ideal.

Infinity loop >Assuming there is a difference, when does a photo (and both film and digital are capable of photos) become an image.
 
If it can be done in the darkroom, no harm in doing it in the lightroom (which is what Dad and I called PP long before LR was created). I never did any colour printing (and only did a couple of tranny soups) but still do as little as possible/necessary on colour scans to get them how I remember the scene at shooting time. The only thing I do in PP that I couldn't in the darkroom is sharpening. (And even that I try to keep to a minimum.)
 
It depends on the question why do you use film?

I use film because I love the old kit and it fills some of my time with fettling and fiddling.

my digital take perfect pictures but what else would i do with my time?
 
I don't even think about it, I just do whatever I need to do to make the end result look how I want. I try get the scanner to give the best results straight into the computer to minimise post-processing but I don't think twice about tweaking if I need to.
 
This is a topic that is as old as “Photography” itself.
I remember entering a club print competition in the 1980s, on commenting in the preamble that I had added the sky from another picture, I was promptly disqualified. I kept my mouth shut on future occasions.
A little while ago I watched the Shackleton saga on TV. The images made by the trip photographer “Frank Hurley” were to say the least superb. I looked for his work online; I was quite surprised to read that he too made composites of the best bits from his pictures.

A quote from…http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/frank-hurley

Hurley was a self-confessed showman'. He embellished images to maximise their visual impact, for example by using the technique of composite printing (combining the best elements of several shots into one). While such manipulation was common in pictorial photography, Hurley was criticised for using it to enhance documentary images.

This was circa 1915.

Rhodese.
 
If it really is just all about the image, and any PP to realise the vision, then why shoot film in the first place? Why not just shoot digital?

If the answer is that film is more fun and enjoyable, then clearly it is not 'just' about the image, so why ruin the charm of film with excessive PP?

Ansel Adams and others are often cited as the level of PP that could be undertaken in the darkroom. And yes it could be extensive. But was this really the norm? I spent years as an amateur sending my films to a lab and for the prices I was paying, they weren't doing much PP. And the pro I knew in the 80s sent his to a pro lab for probably better quality. But he never visited them to talk about individual treatment and processing of negatives. He just went with what they did.

The creative darkroom books I have collected from the 70s and 80s are full of instructions on how to do advanced PP. And the results they use to illustrate these are pretty awful. They looked dodgy then, but compared to the seamless PP easily achieved in photoshop, they now look criminally bad.

Ws it really as easy to do extensive PP in the darkroom as is made out, and was such PP as widespread as suggested, or just the preserve of the few?
 
Quite a few point made. In response to the original, I do whatever I need to do to get the result I want. The camera and lens modify the scene; the film modifies the scene, the choice of developer and development time modifies the scene,the scanner changes things. Why shouldn't I get in the act as well? After all, it was my idea for an image in the first place...

Specifically, I'llmake localised changes with levels and curves (curves are essential for me), do any cloning for spots and basic tidy-ups, crop. These happen on every image. I've rarely (if ever) produced a conventional enlargement without some dodging and burning and even a change of paper grade to adjust the contrast.

And as a quick reply as to why I use film - because the quality is higher (I've never had a black and white film fail to deliver detail where I want it in shadows and highlights; I've more often than not failed with a digital camera. OK, that might be down to me; in which case, film is simpler to use, and I'm all for that); and secondly because it's cheaper (I've always believed that enlarging enlarged inperfections, so the less the better, and hence enlarging by a factor of 4 to get an A2 print was better than enlarging by a factor of about 20; I can't afford a big enough sensor).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top