Thread: Film scanners?
View Single Post
  #89  
Old April 20th 17, 11:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ken Hart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 569
Default Film scanners?

On 04/20/2017 04:20 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:


Well, I don't. I started with film, and had the requisite bathroom
darkroom. The only thing I didn't do was develop the film. Going
through the film steps, which you and Tony enjoyed, drove me up the
wall. I hated every bit of it, and nearly gave up on photography. But
more to the point, I disagree completely that the film steps are
*artistically* different from the digital steps. You are doing the
same thing, only with one you are using toxic chemicals, awkwardly
working slowly with trial and error, whereas with the other, you are
working towards identical artistic goals, but working much more
quickly. And the more quickly you can work, the more time you can
spend getting things exactly as you want them. Better yet, when you
fumble around with digital, all you waste is some electron flow and
some time, as opposed to some pricey chemicals and paper.

I respect those who work with film, it's hard. But I still don't think
there is any remaining legitimate reason for it, except for personal
entertainment, or sense of achievement.


There are many things that can be done in both film and digital to equal
accomplishment. There are also things that can be done better in one
medium than the other, with results that may or may not be appreciated
by viewers.


absolutely false.

anything that can be done with film can be done with digital (and with
a lot less hassle) but *not* the other way around.

In this neck of the woods there are more than 15 major art
shows per year that have many photographers in both mediums presenting
their work, and there are easily perceived differences in their prints.


completely meaningless and an intentionally deceptive comparison.


Isn't that a bit presumptive? Or have you been to the shows in Mr Neil's
"neck of the woods"?

--
Ken Hart