Thread: Film scanners?
View Single Post
  #210  
Old May 13th 17, 03:31 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 415
Default Film scanners?

On 5/11/2017 6:09 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-05-11 21:25:37 +0000, "Russell D." said:

On 05/11/2017 11:29 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-05-11 17:02:25 +0000, "Russell D." said:

On 04/21/2017 09:28 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Since when do we need a "reason" to pursue a hobby from which we
derive pleasure? Since when is someone else's way of pursuing a
hobby
not legitimate?

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

it was claimed.

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.

in another post, he claimed film can do things digital cannot.
that is
a completely bogus claim.

once again, you are twisting things.

Liar. Talk abut twisting things, you were saying that claims were
made about film being superior long before Russell made any comment
about film vs digital in this thread.

What Russell posted late in the thread was:

"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.

This is an ExposureX2 Tri-X simulation with a Rodinal developer
treatment:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mgw8teb17zmzvlz/DSF4472-E.jpg


This example pretty much illustrates my point. That might me Tri-X in
Rodinal at 78 degrees instead of 68 degrees. This is more typical:

https://flic.kr/p/SiATq9


Well, we are talking Tri-X and the variations to that film which can
start in the camera, and continue with the variations regarding
developer choice, time, and temps.
Then comes printing.
I have all sorts of treatments:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k1hmoi6stsk7tb3/DSF1370-E2.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/i8jlkoeavh7ifi4/DSF1371-E2.jpg

...snip...

Emulating film is more than just getting the characteristic curves right.
~~
OK, I'm still fascinated with realist emulation of grain. None of your
posted treatments seem to have captured the grain quality of
Russell D's example.
~
One of the differences I've noted is grain interactions along sharp
lines. IMHO your treatments seem too clean on those sharp edges.
~
I've been playing with way to make those edges more realistic.
Here's one of my test runs on one of your examples:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/q771c6qimx...ynth%29-2A.jpg

I think I'm making some progress in my quest, but lots more work to do.
--
==
Later...
Ron C
--



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com