You are reading a single comment by @M_V and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@M_V
I guess it's a hangover from shooting 35mm where I feel the neg isn't the finished article, there's still lots to add in printing ( I have my own darkroom so can print at home). I know I could scan the neg and work on it digitally to get to where the print gets me but I think maybe because of the enlargement factor when scanning negs I feel like I'd be spending time adding back what the scan has lost. When I scan a print to digitize my image the only manipulation I'll do is a bit of contrast and colour correction to ensure the digital version looks as similar as possible to the printed version.
I guess by making paper negs and scanning/inverting digitally I'm kind of cheating but again I won't do any other manipulation except correct any contrast/colour issues my scanner has introduced.
Maybe it's something about film photography being - for me anyway - much more physical than digital. I want to be able to hold the finished article in my hand* and digitizing the image is just a way of displaying it to people.
*this is why the direct positive paper appealed to me - create the final output right in the camera with nothing but development left to do - but as I mentioned I've found it too inconsistent so making paper negs is as close as I can get. If I'm honest the decision to scan then invert rather than contact print then scan is based purely on laziness and I should contact print more often.