Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
If "the Look" is in the wet print I would think that the only way to get "the Look" would be to scan a wet print at high res.
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
Wet printing is the only way to enjoy photography. I also only listen to vinyl records, watch films on 70mm projection, and drive a 1953 Hudson Hornet.
Anyway, it all comes down to how you scan. Using an imacon, drum scanner, or medium format copy system can yield very high quality results, and you can see all the way down to the film grain. It also depends on how you edit - a traditional flatbed scanning setup has very limited editing options and the final result is at best a TIF. I use a 42MP mirrorless camera at home shooting RAW files which is far more archival, as you can process the files at any point in the future and any way you'd like. I'm pretty happy with my results in terms of sharpness, and doing the manual color conversion is a difficult process but I feel like I am improving. You are welcome to peep around my results: https://flickr.com/photos/183125457@N05/
Anyway, it all comes down to how you scan. Using an imacon, drum scanner, or medium format copy system can yield very high quality results, and you can see all the way down to the film grain. It also depends on how you edit - a traditional flatbed scanning setup has very limited editing options and the final result is at best a TIF. I use a 42MP mirrorless camera at home shooting RAW files which is far more archival, as you can process the files at any point in the future and any way you'd like. I'm pretty happy with my results in terms of sharpness, and doing the manual color conversion is a difficult process but I feel like I am improving. You are welcome to peep around my results: https://flickr.com/photos/183125457@N05/
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
I do camera-scanning for most slides and negatives. I won't get into film vs digital, but FWIW I am getting better files and prints from my old films than I got from the consumer labs back in the film days.
A specific comment about faded slides: Negative Lab Pro has an excellent color analysis engine, I think of it as akin to Auto WB in today's digital cameras. For faded slides, I invert the camera-scan image and then process the result in NLP with good results.
A specific comment about faded slides: Negative Lab Pro has an excellent color analysis engine, I think of it as akin to Auto WB in today's digital cameras. For faded slides, I invert the camera-scan image and then process the result in NLP with good results.
peefeeniz
Never Again
It really depends what digital media you use, files from a your computer look better than files that are stored on the cloud. Files from a spinning hard drive have a more organic and analog look than those from a SSD. Even an old CD-R will look better than a DVD.
For the absolute best, most filmic look you really need to be using the older 5.25" format SyQuest cartridge drives, preferably the original 44mb versions. The later iOmega Zip drives ruined millions of images, just like the magnetic tape fiasco of 1993.
Anything emailed experiences degradation akin to adding an optical generation in the darkroom. People foolishly use the .JPG suffix instead of the correct .JPEG and that's another level of degeneration. Every time you open the file in an image editor there are slight changes that will eventually degrade the image.
This is why there are no digital images that are viewable from before 1957, they've all broken up and turned to noise after years of subtle changes every time they were viewed.
The current best practice is to write your files to traditional 4x5 B&W film using a Kodak LVT film recorder to create a negative in each color channel along with a positive color reference. Archivally processed of course. Metadata should be typed, single space, onto Crane’s 100% cotton rag and stored in a dark ph-neutral archival box in a climate controlled environment. Vertically so as not to impart stress on the paper’s fibers.
Ideally anything with more than 8% magenta should be stored off site sealed in a Lead container placed in the center of a geologically stable salt cavern away from larger magnetic fields and cosmic radiation.
For the absolute best, most filmic look you really need to be using the older 5.25" format SyQuest cartridge drives, preferably the original 44mb versions. The later iOmega Zip drives ruined millions of images, just like the magnetic tape fiasco of 1993.
Anything emailed experiences degradation akin to adding an optical generation in the darkroom. People foolishly use the .JPG suffix instead of the correct .JPEG and that's another level of degeneration. Every time you open the file in an image editor there are slight changes that will eventually degrade the image.
This is why there are no digital images that are viewable from before 1957, they've all broken up and turned to noise after years of subtle changes every time they were viewed.
The current best practice is to write your files to traditional 4x5 B&W film using a Kodak LVT film recorder to create a negative in each color channel along with a positive color reference. Archivally processed of course. Metadata should be typed, single space, onto Crane’s 100% cotton rag and stored in a dark ph-neutral archival box in a climate controlled environment. Vertically so as not to impart stress on the paper’s fibers.
Ideally anything with more than 8% magenta should be stored off site sealed in a Lead container placed in the center of a geologically stable salt cavern away from larger magnetic fields and cosmic radiation.
bluesun267
Well-known
Anytime I hear someone say how archival their digital (insert format here) is, I get a little shudder, followed by a snicker. I get the same shudder (sans snicker) when I think what will happen to all my boxes of slides, gelatin prints and negatives when I am no longer counted among the living. It is my sincere hope they do not end up in the landfill. But then I won't know either way. There's a very good reason why the film industry shies away from digital archiving in favor of film-out, even for productions that originate entirely in the digital realm. Data migration is a constant, recurrent expense: Identifying corrupted data, reconstruction and re-copying must occur at very short intervals, less than a decade if you're really serious about it. Photo-chemical media needs only storage space and minimal temperature control for stability that can be measured in centuries.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I was thinking about this just yesterday. With the current (and unprecedented) nationwide drought in the UK, coupled with sky-high inflation, a looming recession, and mass industrial unrest, a friend was joking about armageddon and how we should be keeping goats and harvesting nettles for food. Obviously there's a large amount of hyperbole and tongue-in-cheek gallows humour going on there, but it did get me wondering what the point of photographing all this turmoil is: does anyone care? And if the doom-mongers are right and modern civilisation is on the brink of collapse, are historians in the future going to be able to access our fancy 42 megapixel RAW files to see what was happening?
At least you can just hold a negative or slide up to the light - even if it's faded or scratched - and get some idea of what you're looking at.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Make prints. Negatives and slides are too fragile, prints last longer and are easier to view...
G
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
You should be driving a Model T roadster, it's the only true method of transportation. Enclosed vehicles do not give the true feeling of traveling plus they are not as easy to take photographs from.
Retro-Grouch
Well-known
No, you should be riding a horse. The excessive speed and noise of the Model T are disorienting and distracting, although the roadster does allow easier transport of your wet plate equipment.
