No one said that if you use film you cannot post process your shots.. film like digital, is a medium.
As pointed out earlier, before digital, people sweat it out in the darkroom to post-process their pictures.. With the convenience digital technology brings about, having a film-digital hybrid work flow does make some sense. If you feel that having a film-digital hybrid work flow dilutes the meaning of shooting film, then perhaps you aren't too sure why you are shooting film and what you want out of it. Maybe you should ponder more about that.
Whether you choose to do your "post-processing" during production of the images (using push development to improve contrast, akin to pumping up the saturation/contrast on a digital sensor) or post production (be it in darkroom or lightroom
) is entirely to your preference. There is no right or wrong.. depends on what kind of output you want and how hard working you are.
Most would go for post production kind of post processing as it gives better and consistent results albeit with more effort. If so, then you should not push process your films. When enhancing images (esp for film scanned images), its best to work with a lower contrast image to avoid rapid clipping of the highlights and shadows and over saturation of colours (due to the limited dynamic range of the sensor).
The issues with scanned images that Srono brought up are indeed valid points for negative films, particularly colour negs. It is nearly impossible to tell what the correct image is supposed to look like on your negs, might be possible to tell for BW negs but near impossible for colour negs. But if you have scanned as much films as I have, then I guess experience does help in determining how the 'original' image is supposed to look like.
By right, as the photographer, you should already know what the original looks like in your memory. The whole point of photography is to record scenes in life and the world and in that sense, your film image should more or less depict the scene the way you saw it in the viewfinder when you released the shutter. Many amateur photographers brought up in the digital era fall into the trap of letting the camera be in control of them when it really should be the photographer in control of his camera. Contrast this to a scanning operator who doesn't know what the real scene is like, its much harder for him to adjust the parameters to get an accurate depiction.
Also on the topic of scanners and its associated software, there will definitely be variations in output. However, generally, the higher up you go, both the hardware and software will give less variation in output, allowing for more consistent neutral results. I have owned a high end flatbed once, but even that cannot give consistent results all the time so I do understand where Srono is coming from. As I always like to point out, when it comes to film scanning, it really depends on your expectations and budget. It ranges from cheap inconsistent results to expensive consistent accurate results and somewhere in the middle, most people try to find a point where they can maximise their results according to their budget.
For me, I always strive to produce neutral scanned images. When you look at it, the original scanned image usually looks lacklustre, but its gives the most headroom when doing post processing. Not sure if you understand this now, but once you start doing it, I'm sure you'll understand what I mean...
Just my 2 cents worth, hope it help you along your journey..
