If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article 2017042111373211272-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote: I guess along the way this was missed. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/features/great-film-renaissance-2017 and for good reason, because it's complete utter rubbish. this bit in particular shows just how ignorant he is: Shooting film is attractive for many reasons: it provides a direct connection to the great images of the past; it requires more hands-on involvement and forethought than digital photography; it produces a physical end product (a negative, a print, a transparency) rather than an image file stored on a hard drive or a memory card; and above all, film images have character, that distinctive look and feel that can be simulated, but never quite duplicated, using digital film-emulation apps. above all, 'that distinctive look' can be *precisely* duplicated with digital, a mathematically provable fact. *he* might not be able to get digital to look the same, but that's his own lack of skill, not that of the medium. as for the rest, film has no more of a direct connection than digital, nothing prevents hands-on, involvement or forethought either (film requiring that is actually a defect, not a feature) and a physical negative, print or slide can be created from a digital original, one which is *higher* quality than had it been created in the camera. he also neglects to mention that physical copies take up physical space and degrade the moment they're created. he also neglects to mention that many hundreds of thousands of photos can be stored in less space than a few dozen physical prints would take up, without needing special storage conditions, and any of which can be instantly retrieved from a simple query (e.g., 'photos of laura' or 'photos of paris in winter'). |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Saturday, April 15, 2017 at 8:23:00 AM UTC-4, newshound wrote:
I realise that this question doesn't have a simple answer, but it is time I started scanning some of my old 35 mm slides and negatives (mostly b&w). I would really welcome some comments or experience on hardware in the "keen amateur" price bracket. I know I can also "farm it out" but I'm interested in doing some myself at least to get a feel for what results to inspect. Is there anything which stands out towards the budget end in terms of value for money or ease of use? Thanks in advance Steve Regarding the "crappy" projector lenses, that is why I used a Nikon projector with a Nikon projector lens, and the best quality screen that I could get. Mort Linder |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 04/20/2017 07:03 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 18:38:59 -0400, Ken Hart wrote: I have to disagree with Mr Bill W's first paragraph. When developing the film, artistry and trial & error should usually be somewhere down the hall! The goal is to be able to get predictable results on the film. That said, there may be times when you have to break the rules in film developing to get any results at all: most typically push or pull processing. Once you have the best possible negative in your enlarger, then the artistry starts: burning in or dodging, color balance, contrast, etc. Thank you for your respect of the craft. But I don't find it hard (maybe because I don't use a "bathroom darkroom"!), and a well printed, mounted and framed enlargement gives me a sense of achievement. Fair enough, but it's not the process I disagree with, it's the claimed output quality of the process. I have prints (typically 20"x24") hanging that I've shoot on either 35mm, 6x6, or 645 and optically printed that I will stack up against an equivalent digital print- not a screen image, but an actual print-on-paper, framed and hanging on the wall. -- Ken Hart |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: I guess along the way this was missed. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora...at-film-renais sance-2017 nospam will respond and trash the piece, of course. That's what he does. i trash stuff when it deserves to be trashed. the above article is pure trash. I do wonder if he thinks that he has informed, educated, or convinced anyone with his continued rants. Basically, he's preaching to the choir. I don't think anyone here thinks that film is inherently superior to digital, you think wrong. several people have stated exactly that and you even quoted one of them. but there might be some who think that their results using film are superior to what *they* can do with digital. if so, that would be *their* limitation, not that of digital. what's worse is they refuse to learn how. That's a subjective opinion and a perfectly valid self-assessment. it's not subjective in the least. anything that can be done with film can be done with digital, a provable fact. I don't expect there will be a stampede of people abandoning film cameras have you been living in a cave for the last two decades?? there already has been such a stampede. film sales are a tiny fraction of what they once were. kodak went bankrupt and rochester, new york is hurting because of it. polaroid no longer exists other than a name to be licensed, mostly for crappy electronics. camera stores are mostly gone and with rare exception, film cameras aren't being made anymore. because the little tinpot wannabe dictator nospam has told insults are all you know. them they can only expect mediocre results. and that's exactly why there was a stampede. people quickly realized that digital produces better results with less fuss, particularly pros where maximum quality is very important. like any change, there are always a few stubborn holdouts who refuse to accept reality, some of whom have a vested interest in keeping the status quo, making their claims rather biased. |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Ken Hart
wrote: I have to disagree with Mr Bill W's first paragraph. When developing the film, artistry and trial & error should usually be somewhere down the hall! The goal is to be able to get predictable results on the film. That said, there may be times when you have to break the rules in film developing to get any results at all: most typically push or pull processing. Once you have the best possible negative in your enlarger, then the artistry starts: burning in or dodging, color balance, contrast, etc. Thank you for your respect of the craft. But I don't find it hard (maybe because I don't use a "bathroom darkroom"!), and a well printed, mounted and framed enlargement gives me a sense of achievement. Fair enough, but it's not the process I disagree with, it's the claimed output quality of the process. I have prints (typically 20"x24") hanging that I've shoot on either 35mm, 6x6, or 645 and optically printed all of which could be done with a digital camera, with noticeably better results. that I will stack up against an equivalent digital print- not a screen image, but an actual print-on-paper, framed and hanging on the wall. you will lose. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:13:49 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: 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? nope. Or have you been to the shows in Mr Neil's "neck of the woods"? he is attempting to compare two different photos taken by two different photographers of two different subjects under different lighting with different exposures on two different mediums, and then claiming that the only reason the results are different is because one is film and the other is digital. that's completely absurd. there are *far* too many variables to make the comparison even the slightest bit useful. it's also not needed since whatever 'film look' someone might want can be done with digital. simple fact. You are changing the subject. Typical. nothing was changed. not a single thing. Bull****. bull**** right back. The original discussion was about film photography vs digital photography in general. Now here you are writing as though the discussion was about "two different photos taken by two different photographers ... etc". Up till now no one was discussing "two different photos taken by two different photographers ... etc" until you introduced the topic. nope. read it again. someone *else* brought the comparison. Nope. Prove me wrong by giving a quote. scroll up. Typical cop out. it ain't me who is copping out. Give me a quote. scroll up. it's still there. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
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. The point, in this case, is not what *can* be done, but Russell *wants to do*. I'm sure Russell knows the options available in digital, but he chooses to go a different way because "It's fun". It is always about want each of us *wants to do*, and I am sure that it is fun for him. However, I am not so sure that he does know all the digital options available to him, or if he even cares that there are such options. Why on earth would anyone object to this? Only one person I can think off. Or label his choice as the "mediocre" way to go? He who labels without thinking things through, or caring about any opinions than his. I guess along the way this was missed. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/features/great-film-renaissance-2017 -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:13:50 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: That means that the limit of digital performance is known. Therefore there is nothing new to be discovered or invented. no it doesn't mean that at all. not even remotely close. Conversely, if there are new things to be discovered or invented then the limits are not known and it is not possible to claim that anyone is using "digital to its maximum performance". it's not only possible, but that's exactly what i claimed. So you are claiming that there are people doing things which have not yet been discovered? nope. So things which have not been discovered are not yet being done? what does that have to do with anything??? Ah ha! By your equivocation I can tell that you now see the trap before you. what i see is yet another one of your ridiculous arguments. I will answer for you: "Of course things which have not been discovered are not being done". To which I answer "Then if there are things which have not been discovered and are not being done then there is more to digital photography than anyone knows how to do so nobody can possibly be using 'digital to its maximum performance'". entirely missing the point. I think this will do for the end of the argument. good Typical. for you, yes. |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: 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/20...o-acros-the-de finitive-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. as i said elsewhere, it's his own limitation, not that of digital. |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
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. 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, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
film scanners | James[_3_] | In The Darkroom | 0 | October 8th 09 08:37 AM |
Film Scanners | Stephen[_2_] | Digital Photography | 1 | July 10th 09 07:56 PM |
Film scanners anyone? | Ted Gibson | Digital Photography | 15 | January 8th 08 03:31 AM |
Film Scanners | Gel | Digital Photography | 20 | February 21st 05 12:25 AM |
M/F film scanners - again? | Rod | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 17 | May 31st 04 04:14 PM |