Capture 1 and film cameras

[Jonathan Cross]

I understand Capture one is introducing a version that will handle and convert negatives to positives. If it works well it wil undoubtedly be good for film users.  But..

There are a three confusions in my mind.  Firstly, why shoot on film and then scan and process the resulting digital file?  Film requires developing (at a cost), and cannot be reviewed mid shooting session to check, unlike an image with a digital camera. 

Secondly, what is the point of taking an image on film and then processing as a digital file?   I have Fuji cameras, so have film simulations, either to use with JPEGS in camera, or with RAWs in LR (I do the latter).  I can change the iso frame by frame.  Am I missing something?

Thirdly, with 40MP and more sensors, the resolution seems to better than that on 35mm film.

Is it just nostalgia that favours film, or something more objective?

I am genuinely puzzled.  Can anyone enlighten me, please.

Jonathan

[Chris Kern]

I understand Capture one is introducing a version that will handle and convert negatives to positives. If it works well it wil undoubtedly be good for film users.

As far as I know, most scanning software can convert negatives to positive images.  VueScan performs quite competent conversions of both black-and-white and color negatives.  (Some adjustment of the default parameters is occasionally necessary.)

. . . why shoot on film and then scan and process the resulting digital file? . . . Is it just nostalgia that favours film, or something more objective?

For me, nostalgia is certainly part of it.  I occasionally shoot with a restored sample of the first "serious" camera I used as a kid, which belonged to my father.  Using a purely mechanical camera is a quite different experience than using a modern digital one.  A scanned analog negative often seems to have a different—softer, smoother—appearance than a digital capture.  (I'm also a Fuji shooter and Lightroom's Acros simulation, for example, doesn't seem to exactly replicate the corresponding film stock.)

Thirdly, with 40MP and more sensors, the resolution seems to better than that on 35mm film.

No question about it.  But I've made 20-inch-wide prints from the negatives of the 1937 camera at the link above and they hold up remarkably well at that size.