So how do you all deliver a mix of the two mediums?? Well, actually, it's all digital upon delivery, but how do you organize the two together, being that they wont all show up in correct order...do you go through and edit metadata for the film scans, and just make it approximate?? Or do you just put them all at the end?? Or just arrange be dragging in lightroom/aperture, then re-name them all in sequential order??
I have had that problem, too. I just keep them in two different folders, film and digital. One of them goes after the other. Not very smart but it works. I am wondering why I would ever shoot both now, unless I shot film in B&W, like high ISO t-max 3200 or something similar for creativity to go with the digital.
how many film shots are you ending up with? I would either change the capture time of the film shots to fit into the digital mix or else just keep them separate upon delivery.
NathanHamler wrote:
So how do you all deliver a mix of the two mediums?? Well, actually, it's all digital upon delivery, but how do you organize the two together, being that they wont all show up in correct order...do you go through and edit metadata for the film scans, and just make it approximate?? Or do you just put them all at the end?? Or just arrange be dragging in lightroom/aperture, then re-name them all in sequential order??
If you are using film as a selling point then I would keep them separate and present them in a special or unique way, otherwise they just meld into the digital files and you might as well just drop film all together.
Having shot film for weddings many years ago, and shooting digital now, with the much better digital processing options available, my first question is; Why are you shooting film? (I recognize the concept that film is somehow, special, although its one I can't get excited about personally.)
If you are using it as a unique differentiator in your selling process, then I agree you have to keep it separate and featured. I would guess that very few would be able to pick out the film shots from similarly processed digital.
I just do it for fun mainly...shot an e-session yesterday, just shot one roll...so i may have 10-15 shots to mix in...i prob could just edit the metadata so they match...the thing is my digital shots aren't really processed in a specific style..not VSCO or any other actions...i make my skin tones accurate, contrast and exposure and that's about it...so the film def has a different look...not really doing it for a specific reason/market group, etc...just because...For a wedding i may shoot 2 rolls...
PhotoMechanic, sort by arrangement, drag and drop. I only shoot film or digital in any given setting, I don't mix them, so I just sort digital by capture time then go in and drop the film shot chunks into the appropriate places in the timeline of the day.
NathanHamler wrote:
I just do it for fun mainly...shot an e-session yesterday, just shot one roll...so i may have 10-15 shots to mix in...i prob could just edit the metadata so they match...the thing is my digital shots aren't really processed in a specific style..not VSCO or any other actions...i make my skin tones accurate, contrast and exposure and that's about it...so the film def has a different look...not really doing it for a specific reason/market group, etc...just because...For a wedding i may shoot 2 rolls...
When I shot film we took care to be sure that we were making exposures that were specific to the development procedures. We selected the film based on the shooting situation. We make prints based on what we and the client wanted related to tonal range. tone curve, grain sharpness, etc.
Just running a digital file through Lightroom at its defaults is, in my view, missing the point of digital. Saying that you think film has a different look is because you make choices ahead of time that determined the film outcome.
Not doing the same thing with digital leaves so much unexplored.
dmward wrote:
Just running a digital file through Lightroom at its defaults is, in my view, missing the point of digital. Saying that you think film has a different look is because you make choices ahead of time that determined the film outcome.
Not doing the same thing with digital leaves so much unexplored.
well just cause i like my stuff clean and contrasty, with accurate skin tones, doesn't make me any better or worse than someone who runs actions on all their stuff and destroys the skin tones in the process...i'm not saying everyone does this, but i do personally know some people who that is their entire workflow...batch them all with actions, and then deliver....nothing else...out of camera, action, deliver....i spend time on each image, making SPECIFIC tweaks to each image....so how is that missing the point of digital?? Just cause I dont touch every slider in Aperture anymore, and over-cook everything like I did when i was a rookie, doesn't mean i'm missing the point....Just look at my website....i'm sure i have a "look" compared to others, but to me, it's just clean and natural....
D. Diggler wrote: Merely capturing the image using film yields an organic look that digital can't duplicate.
Exactly. Plus it's fun to look at the back of the camera after a set of photos and expect to see something....
