Digital v scanned negative?

[Gez]

With top performing scanners coming down in price and film cameras selling cheaply, digitalizing negatives may be the best way to achieve image quality?

[DTD]

Re: Digital v scanned negative?

I still do a fair bit of this.
For some work I enjoy using my film cameras (Ricoh GR1s and Leica M6) in a way that I don't think my dSLR (Olympus E1) will ever match. For some of the things I'm doing, they suit me better.

But for a lot of stuff digital is just so much more practical.

You can get good quality from scanning film, but I think that most people can get good quality easier from digital.

[Ian]

Re: Digital v scanned negative?

Hi David - what are the particular strengths of film over digital in your view?

Ian

[DTD]

Re: Digital v scanned negative?

I think we've reached the stage where any dSLR can give results that are as good as most people want or need.

I still use film (some of the time) because of the cameras. Being a simple soul, I like the simplicity of a manual, mechanical film camera. I've taken most of my photographs using an Olympus OM1.

I know people will say it's the person that takes the picture, but different cameras make you work in different ways. I think I've mentioned before a long-term project I'm doing on the English seaside. This has almost entirely been shot with my Ricoh GR1. I find its discreet compact looks and wide angle lens perfect for candids. I would find it very hard to do these photos with a dSLR.

As Gez suggests, the price – I could just about afford a M6 – I couldn't afford an M8.

As I mainly shoot black and white ISO400, I like the look of film particulary the grain. Sometimes digital is too 'clean'.

Having said all that, for a lot of my stuff, the E-1 is perfect. And I'm not looking forward to scanning a couple of dozen negatives I've got lined up. Getting out of the darkroom and onto the computer is for me the best bit of digital.

Oh yes and if Ricoh have a spare GR-D going…