Thread: Film scanners?
View Single Post
  #195  
Old May 12th 17, 03:09 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Film scanners?

In article , Russell D.
wrote:

On 05/11/2017 05:43 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Russell D.
wrote:


"Bill, I can take shoot a roll of TriX and develop it in D-76 1:1 and
get one look and then stand develop another roll in 1:100 Rodinal for
an hour and get another look and then develop another roll in coffee
(Caffenol) for yet another look. It's fun. You cannot duplicate the
experience or the look with digital. Film has a unique look. It is not
better or worse than digital. It is just different."

he is wrong.

it *can* be duplicated.

OK, show me digitally duplicated TriX semi-stand developed in 1:100
Rodinal.

I have yet to even see a digital "Kodachrome" photo that looked like
Kodachrome.

just because you personally haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't
exist.

True. You are the one making the claim. Show me an example. It does not
need to be yours.


the only example needed is that digital surpasses film in every metric,
which means that whatever film can do, digital can do it better or held
back to match it.


No pictures--it didn't happen.

What is the metric for visual appeal? What is the metric for fun?


fun isn't the issue.

not even a good attempt at moving the goalposts.