Thread: Film scanners?
View Single Post
  #132  
Old April 21st 17, 04:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,692
Default Film scanners?

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:52:45 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 16:08:23 -0700, Bill W
Not one person is arguing that film is not a legitimate pursuit. It's
the claims of the superiority of film output that we are arguing
about.

Who made that claim?


In this thread? I'm not sure that anyone has.

I've followed this thread, and nospam has denied
that claim, but he's denying something that hasn't been claimed.


Threads always drift, and it might even be me who caused this part of
it. I'm not going to go back through every post, but I'm sure you
won't deny that at least a couple of posters here have made claims
that film is superior to digital, whether in this particular thread or
not.

This is what nospam does to a thread to create an argument where there
should not be an argument. The thread started on the subject of
scanners. Then, Russell D. posted: "Exactly what I was thinking when
I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored with digital and started
shooting film again. Glad I didn't sell it."

No claim that film is superior. No claim that he can do something
with film that can't be done with digital. Just a simple statement
that he started shooting film again.


Sure, in the comments by one poster in this thread. There have been
several other posters, and several other threads. My comments have
been very general.

nospam had to jump in and say: "bored with digital? there's so much
more it can do versus film." and Russell replied "Why do I need it to
do more?".

nospam, delighted to be able to start yet another argument while
putting-down someone else's preference and insult their ability wrote:
"why limit yourself? if you're satisfied with mediocre, go for it."


In other words, nospam feels that anyone shooting film is only capable
of mediocre output.


I didn't read it that way. And you are ignoring the full context of
the discussion.

It's typical of nospam to do this. He creates dissension where there
is no dissension.

It's not a film shooter that has claimed superiority. It's the person
who says that film shooters can only produce mediocre results that is
claiming superiority.


Claiming superiority of a technology, and I fully agree. But there are
film shooters who claim superiority of the final output using film.
Film is limiting, and that's all anyone is claiming. If you take two
identical photos under perfect conditions, one with top 35 mm film,
and the other with a good FF DSLR, the prints should be of equal
quality before any processing is done. I don't think anyone would
argue with that. But if processing is needed or simply wanted for
artistic purposes, which would you rather work with, especially if
it's major work?