Stan Fayer

Is it worth shooting Film if all your going to do is scan and digitalize your negatives, or is it self defeating.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

It's a lifestyle for some. There is no questioning that.

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

Well --
Some of my same thoughts back in 2009 when buying 50 rolls of Provia became a major investment
Purchased my 1st digital a 5D II in 2010

clint f. Loc: Priest Lake Idaho, Spokane Wa

If you have the camera and film an experiment is in order.

User ID

While I actually could share the REAL answer, its better to just point out that this question is inexorably destined to finally die off. IOW my answer is "Patience, young grass hopper".

(Download)

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Back at the start of digital I was a working professional, and I was already getting demands for photos in digital format. At that time professional quality digital cameras were very expensive, so I got a Nikon film scanner to produce them. When I got my first pro digital camera, a Nikon D2X, for around $6,000, I was impressed at the image quality I was getting compared with my scans. I can't see having the expense and work of shooting and processing film and then have the extra step of scanning. And you don't get the digital advantage of being able to review images as you shoot. If you really need the look of film, there are software solutions to achieve that.

User ID

Amen.

Fortunately for me I was on staff so no $$ out of my pocket. We were issued D200s. I hated the camera operationally, but it was already obvious that this was waaaaaay better than film. I spoze some will say thaz cuz it used a CCD sensor, but perznally I greatly welcomed the breakthrough of CMOS sensors.

The very day I could shoot without film was the last I ever even thought about film. Film as a means to an end was all finished. Never looked back. Lately we have many users with only a sketchy grasp of digital now wondering if film will elevate their imaging. I can barely wish them rotsaruck widdat !

bw79st Loc: New York City

I'm not a professional but have a backlog of slides and color, as well as B&W, negs that can now be accessed via digital scanning. Everything has been scanned to digfital via a Canon FS4000 film and slide scanner. I have tried other methods that employ the use of a digital camera taking a photo of a slide, or the use of an
Epson 700 flat bed, but neither has come close to the results from the dedicated film/neg Canon scanner. In my opinion it makes no sense to shoot film these days unless you,have a specific reason to do so. My slides/film go back to 1963 and are amateur quality but still very good. I spent time in Saigon and shot a load of slides, and b&w, on a Minolta SRT101 while there. All have been scanned on the Canon FS4000 and I am quite happy with the results, especailly compared to the Epson 700 and the various methods of using a digital camera to copy them. That's my experience so take it for what it's worth!

After a few years I made the decision to rescan everything as DNG files using Vuescan software. I realized I needed a copy of each frame that could be worked on by future generations of nieces and nephews! The most important decision, to me, was to add descriptions in the accompanying comments. I learned this from the photos my stepfather took while in the 8th Air Force in England in WW2. His comments were sketchy so I endeavored to rectify that in my photos.

User ID

So you consider originating on film in 2024 to be somewhat ill advised ?

bw79st Loc: New York City

From my amateur standpoint, yes.

therwol Loc: USA

I just want to say that I have scanned thousands of negatives and slides from another era. I have even photographed some with a macro lens and a Nikon D810. The results in no way compare with what I get from my digital cameras, currently a Nikon D850 and Canon G7XII. They are certainly pleasing and display well on a computer monitor, but even scans of Kodachrome slides don't capture all of the detail in the slides. I see film as an expensive waste of time with the exception of large format, and then you're talking about really expensive and cumbersome to use. I wouldn't buy a new film camera. I can take out an old but working Nikon FTn and take pictures on film with it. I even have a 4x5 Crown graphic that I've used in the past to make impressive images, even when scanned from the film. It isn't worth my time or money. This is my opinion. The opinions of others may differ. Pentax is betting on that. If I were really into film, I'd buy a used Nikon F4, 5 or 6. I'm not.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Alas, what are you going to do with the film if not scanned after developing?

Film is a different process, producing different results. Personally, I edit the scanned JPEGs after scanning, not to make them look digital, but because they are digital.

Here are some recent examples of scanned and edited results.

Working with Ilford Delta 400

Chicago Union Station using expired film

Red landscaping on Ektar

WayneL Loc: Baltimore Md

If you have a film camera that you like to use, why not enjoy it.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I have three old film cameras which I enjoyed using, THEN.
But I definitely don't care for the extra steps involved, nor the wait for processing to see the results;
even though film prints have a bit better finesse about it.
(I only had a B&W darkroom.)

And if I scan them to tweak them, I have a digital file.......

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

The only way I would use film now is if it were B&W and I developed and printed it in a darkroom again. I think a great B&W silver darkroom print is better than any digital B&W print I've seen. But with digital I have come to love color anyway and I have no interest in B&W any more.