Film to Digital

[BryanC]

I want to re-visit shooting 35mm film and was wondering if there were any members who still shoot film in addition to digital. When I made the switch from film to digital, it was a clean change, with a period of inactivity in between. That is to say, none of my film was ever converted to digital files. I guess that brings up my first question. What is the better way to do this, quality wise? Scanning negatives, slides, etc.?

It will mainly be B&W...and, at first at least, using the C41 processing "B&W" type films for reasons of cost, availability, local processing, and, to be honest, to give the "re-interest" a chance to see where it goes. I have only dabbled with the Kodak brand of this type of film in the past, with mixed results. Occasional "tinting" and lower contrast being the drawbacks. Any recommendations for different brands of this type of film or is post digital processing a better alternative?

Why am I doing this? For the enjoyment I guess. It's where it started for me. It won't be "instead of digital", but in addition to it.

Any thoughts, opinions, tips, etc. are appreciated!

[OsmosisStudios]

I still shoot film (35mm and 120) along with my digital files. All of my film is then scanned either at the lab or, especially with 120, on an Epson V500 at home.

As for film stock:
For Black and white, if you want C-41 process, I vastly prefer Ilford's XP2 film, both in 35mm and 120. Your best bet is to overexpose it 1/3 to 2/3 stops (just meter it as 320 or 250 instea of 400). If you wanna have some real fun, though, use Ilford's Pan-F (50). It's super low ISO suited for long exposures. Just keep track of your reciprocity failure rates for it. I have the details if you'd like to PM me. Downside: it's true black and white, which means sending it out for processing.

For colour, I basically use one of two film stocks. For studio work I use Kodak Ektar 100. Super fine grain, nice low ISO, and clean, saturated colours. It's REALLY finicky with white balance, though, so I tend to only use it in a studio. For outdoors, I prefer Kodak's Portra 160 or 400. It comes in two variations: VC and NC. The VC is more saturated, the NC is more neutral. It's not as picky for tone, and works well in lower light because you can get it as 400ISO.

If you're looking at getting into it for fun, I'd definitely suggest a nice, cheap, simple SLR camera or a small rangefinder. I use a Nikon FE, which is dead simple, with a 50mm f/1.8 lens (the same one I use on my dSLR).

[BryanC]

I have been researching and checking things out on my own, but I wanted to post here, too, so that I could interact with someone as this progresses. So, thanks for taking the time, it's appreciated! More than a few times, the Ilford brand has come up or been recommended, and now with you mentioning it, I will start off with that.

Like I said in my original post, I'm going to start with that for the convenience and ease (C41 type), and to make sure it's something that I want to continue. If so, I want to move to true b&w. When I do, I will definitely hit you up on the reciprocity failure rate details if it means a better alternative to bracketing a bunch of shots. If I decide to shoot color also, I definitely will explore your color stock recommendations.

Years ago, I either sold or gave away my better film slr's and lenses, but I do still have 2 bare bones Minoltas and a hand full of lenses for them, including a 50mm f/2.0 (yes, 2.0) prime, that I carefully stored. They weren't worth selling, but I do remember them doing a pretty good job. Good enough for now, anyway. I'm hoping to have the time this weekend to pick up some rolls and re-aquaint myself with them.

Once again, I appreciate your input and help...I'll keep you posted.

[OsmosisStudios]

I've got the reciprocity numbers for XP2 as well, though they're essentially the same as PanF.

The only thing to really note is the exposure compensation for XP2: its not great shot as 400 or underexposed. You really do wanna shoot to the right with it.