This is why I shoot film

I use film for my fine art work because it inspires my imagination in ways that I don't get from shooting digital.

 I have been shooting film since I was 15 years of age, after more 40 years of film usage I still feel that film has value in today's digital world. Some back ground: I have been a newspaper photographer since I was 18 years of age, I started out shooting black and white film with my Nikon F2 camera. Today its all digital and I have to say that I love shooting digital for my newspaper work, back in November of 2001 the newspaper I currently work for, the Kelowna Daily Courier bought , Nikon D1H digital cameras for the photo staff.

 I would never want to go back to film for my day to day work assignments at the paper . Digital is a must in photojournalism, I wouldn't want to be with out it, as it's awfully convenient to use.

Shooting film on my time off is a whole different story, for one I have no deadlines to contend with, so it doesn't matter to me that I can see my pictures right away, I feel as an artist, I want to slow things down a bit so I'm okay with taking some time create my work. For more than twenty-five years I have been using a 4 x 5 view camera with black and white film, I have shot a number of different film types, Kodak Tri-X, Kodak T-Max and Ilford HP5. I totally love making images with my large format view cameras, using 4 x 5 inch film sometimes 8 x 10 inch film. Almost all the work you see on my website, my blog here and my Facebook page is done with view cameras.

 I am frequently asked, why film and why a view camera? some think its bulky, time consuming not easy to use which is probably true. One of the things that I have found that with shooting film is not so much that it makes me a better photographer but that it clearly makes me look at my subjects in a far different way than using digital, its hard to explain, I am much more selective in terms of how I photograph my chosen subject when shooting with film.

 I have not found a digital equivalent to the view camera, but to me there is nothing more beautiful than looking at my composed image even though it is upside down and backwards on the ground glass screen of my view camera.  It's really that beautiful and inspiring to look at, a direct 'pure' image coming through the lens, in some ways a truly 'raw' image.

These days I work with a hybrid system or a digital scan-workflow, I shoot sheet film and then scan the negatives with a flatbed scanner a Microtek F2 ( read my review here ). I also hope to do more contact sheet printing in the wet darkroom from my 8 x 10 negatives, I have always been inspired by the work of Edward Weston, what I love about Edward's work was the simplicity of his craft in making his wonderful images, his darkroom consisted of just a few trays, printing frame and darkroom lights, he was able to set up almost anywhere.

 I would say that shooting film may be a little crazy in this digital age, and may seem like the hard way to produce an end product when the easier route is to shoot digitally, but then so is running a marathon, there are a lot easier ways to cover the 26.2 miles by pounding the ground with your feet. Also I feel that there is a sense of accomplishment in that some film cameras are not easy to use, but then neither is playing a violin, it takes years to get good at playing such an instrument, but the effort is well worth it, in terms of one's personal satisfaction and knowing that you have worked hard for something and earned it.

Another analogy to music , some musicians might use a whole range of instruments to create their music,  for example Yo-Yo Ma plays with a 300 year old cello, or some musicians play with the latest electronic instruments while others might use a mixture older non-electric and electronic instruments. I think that that great photographs can be taken with a variety of cameras either film or digital with no camera or work flow better than the other, it comes down to what is best on a personal level for each and every artist.

Microtek's new ArtixScan F2 scanner

             Botany Bay, Vancouver Island, December 2012

This is a short mini review of Microtek's new F2 scanner, as I have probably said in some of my previous reviews, I am not a professional reviewer by any stretch of the imagination, I do scan a lot of negatives though, last year it was over five-hundred 4 x 5 black and white negatives ( T-Max 400 film ). 

Some background, I have owned the Mictotek series of flatbed scanners going back to the model ScanMaker i900 that I bought in 2004. I liked it because at the time it was one of the few scanners on the market that could scan my 8 x 10 negatives and something that I could afford in my price range, now of course there are other scanners on the market, like the Epson V700 and V750 scanners. In late 2007 I upgraded to the new M1 scanner, it featured auto focus, a while ago I did a scan comparison test between my M1 and an Epson V750, I thought that the Epson scans were a tad sharper than the Microtek M1, but not by a whole lot, I also thought that the M1 scans looked less "grainy" than the V750 scans, I thought that by the time I made prints in the 16 x 20 print range with a little extra sharpening that those differences would not be an issue at all. The M1 scanner has been a real work horse for me, after 2000 scans it needed some repairs to the autofocus system, so I sent it off to Microtek in California, they were able to fix it no problem.

I recently purchased Microtek's latest flatbed scanner the ArtixScan F2 model which is only compatible with Mac computers ( the M2 version is for PC computers ), you can read about the full technical details by clicking here: "Microtek ArtixSan F2" . First thing I would say about this F2 scanner is that It's quite heavy weighing in at 26.4 lbs ( 12kg ) and will take a sizeable footprint on your desk or table, 22.3" x 15.1" x 6.3"/ 567 x 385 x 158 mm, it features auto focus scan head, 4800-dpi optical CCD, twin scan-bed with patented Emulsion Direct Imaging Technology ( E.D.I.T. ). LED light source, ( new for the M2/F2 scanners ), it comes bundled with LaserSoft's SilverFast Studio 8 and ScanWizard Pro. Please note for the M2 there is only ScanWizard Pro available. Personally I prefer to use the SilverFast, I have used product with good results over the years.

In comparison to the M1 ( which I still own ) and the new ArtixScan F2, I would have to say that the key improvements  with the new ArtixScan F2 would be: 1). It's a lot quieter, I notice this when the machine goes through its focus stage during the scanning process, 2). It's much faster to starting up after turning the power button on and 3).The scan time is much faster, probably on average about 40% faster. Microtek claims the F2/M2 produces sharper scans, I did a few comparison tests, I used a 35mm colour Kodachrome slide, as far as I could the two scans looked the same, maybe very slight increase in detail with the F2 scanner.  4). I noticed that the most improvement in terms of sharpness was  with the overall edge to edge sharpness of my scans especially when scanning from my 4 x 5 negatives, I am happy to see this. Also these flat beds start to show their weakness when scanning medium format film or smaller, (35mm ) , from the tests that I have done I would say with  F2 scanner maximum enlargement size would be about 8X  or 800% from the original sized negative or slide, I would suggest that if anyone one has a lot of 35mm or medium format negatives to scan perhaps look at a dedicated scanner for those size of formats like the new Pustek OpticFilm 120.

Also back in March of 2008 I did mini-review of the then new M1 scanner, you can read about it "Here". As with other Microtek scanners in this model range ( i900, F1/M1 F2/M2 ) they are all about the same size and shape and look almost identical with the same grey/black colour scheme made of hard plastic, they have always been a very solid feeling to these machines,  things like film holders have gone unchanged for many years now, which should in theory should make it easier to find these parts. As with most scanners, the film holders are probably one of the weakest parts, most are made of plastic and will eventually break with time or they will bend out of shape or not hold the film flat. I almost exclusively scan large format negatives with this F2 scanner. I have been using some specially constructed film holders that I had custom made for me when I had a horizontal 8 x 10 enlarger that I made out of an old Century 8 x 10 view camera, very basic,  I had a local machine shop make me up some aluminium plates ( 1/8" in thickness ) with precision cut rectangular holes made with their milling machine, these were cut just a tad smaller for my three sizes of sheet film that I use, 4 x 5, 5 x 7 and 8 x 10 these plates are then attached to the standard open trays that comes supplied with the scanner, the important thing is that these plate are perfectly flat, hence getting them done with a milling machine, a little pricey too to get them made. I just use a little bit of light scotch tape to gently stretch the  negative across the opening, it works well for me.

A little about SilverFast 8 software: I posted back in August of last year about this new software, you can read about it "Here". I quite like SilverFast 8, as I have previously stated I prefer to use the "16 bit HDR " grayscale setting for almost all of my black and white scans, this is effectively a "raw" scan which I can then work on in Photoshop. Another really neat feature of SilverFast 8 is that the resolution bar indicates the maximum amount of "optical dpi" that the scanner can produce, it tells you when you are in the interpolated part of the scanner, the real optical scan resolution of the F2 scanner as far as I can tell is about 2400-dpi from what SilverFast 8 tells me on the adjustable resolution scale, very handy information. Also SilverFast has been very good with me in terms of their technical support, they always answer my emails promptly and have even worked with me step by step via telephone from Germany to resolve one issue.

In conclusion, I think for my purposes this ArtixScan F2 is a good scanner, it does the job ( for me ). Every scanner will have some kind of issues to work around, in the past my M1 has done a lot of scans and I hope that the new F2 will do likewise ( I now have the M1 as my back up ) I also really like the glassless scanning option which I originally liked with the i900 scanner, it almost seems like I am using a large format enlarger in my old darkroom!, for the most part the auto focus works well, how ever I will mention that every once and while it will mis-focus usually due to the focus spot being in an area of the negative where there is little or no detail. I'm sure there are others out there who will have their own opinions and preferences as to what scanner to use, although I would suggest when critical information is needed from negatives to produce the very best prints, the drum scanner and a properly trained operator is still the best way to go. If anyone has any questions, please post here or email me, I will try to answer as best as I can, I am no technical wizard, there are others out there with far more knowledge in that respect than I do, I just know the basics to get my negatives scanned in as best as possible using the best possible equipment that I can afford.

UPDATE ( August 29, 2014 ): Several readers have contacted me asking where can they get Microtek's new ArtixScan F2, I personally contacted Microtek myself, to purchase in North America:

Company: Iscantek Inc. 

Address: 14145 Proctor Ave Ste 10, La Puente CA 91746 

Tel: 626-269-9948 

FAX: 626-333-7240 

Contact: Mr. Loi Giai Han 

Email: loihan@iscantek.com 

Website: www.iscantek.com