On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 17:29:36 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-21 23:09:27 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:37:32 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-21 17:37:10 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2017-04-21 17:07:21 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:16:03 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-21 15:21:03 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:13:49 -0400, 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 was referring to *his* experience, and that's a perfectly valid
claim.

However, each of those rolls of Tri-X is limited to its singular and
unique developing process, whereas a single digital exposure can be
processed with as many different film emulations you care to experiment
with, without loosing the experimental experience.

True, that. But is that what Russell wants to do?

I wouldn't know. He hasn't told us if he has even thought of that approach.

Shoot and process
in such a way that he has unlimited revision choices, or shoot and
process in such a way that he has to do it right the first time?

Shooting digital doesn't stop you from getting things "right the first
time", and locking into those results without any post processing.
Especially if you shoot JPEG only, and use a camera which gives you
very good SOOC options with in-camera film emulation choices. here I am
thinking selfishly of my X-T2.
http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/2017/3/19/forget-raw-and-go-acros-the-definitive-review

The

article contains the statement that:

"The fact that no external RAW converter can achieve a similar
analogue film-like look ... ".

I must agree with what nospam will probably say. If it can be done in
the camera it clearly can be done in an external computer. The fact
that the author of that article doesn't know how is irrelevant.

What the author is saying mirrors my experience, that currently none of
the available software, including the best of all those I have which
provide film emulation; Exposure X2, Tonality Pro, On1 Photo RAW 2017,
NIK Silver Efex Pro2, and others, can quite match what Fujifilm does
in-camera. I have made side-by-side comparisons and the Fujifilm
in-camera process is quite remarkable and unmatched. However, there are
times I want something other than the choices Fujifilm offers, then I
turn to Exposure X2.

That's not what he is saying at all. The full quote is:

"The fact that no external RAW converter can achieve a similar
analogue film-like look is for me an additional incentive to focus
on using JPEG´s (on top of the already simplified and faster
workflow)!"

[And look at that apostrophe in "JPEG's"]

As I was saying above, he has made the blanket claim that it is a fact
"that no external RAW converter can achieve a similar analogue
film-like look ... ". It is not at all a fact. It may be a fact that
the author doesn't know any external RAW converter which can match
what the camera does but that does not make it a fact that no external
RAW convertor *CAN* match what the camera does. If the processor in
the camera can do it then so can a suitable external processor do it.

Many shooters with the Fujifilm X-Trans III sensor cameras such as the
X-Pro2, X-T2, X-100F, & X-T20 have chosen to shoot JPEG only and use
SOOC images by-passing an external computer.

Personally I am still of the RAW+JPEG school with my
Lightroom+Photoshop workflow, but I am open to all sorts of change, and
so far I have been impressed with the quality of unprocessed JPEGs SOOC
from both my X-E2 and my X-T2. I have little problem shareing or
otherwise using SOOC Fujifilm X-Trans images.

What nospam says is all up to him, but I have my own evidence.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens