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 |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Russell D.
wrote: 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. you have *no* way to know what the temperature of the developer was. This is more typical: https://flic.kr/p/SiATq9 I have yet to even see a digital "Kodachrome" photo that looked like Kodachrome. Then the question should be: which specific Kodachrome vintage, 1936, 1954, 1963, et seq? They each have a very different tone. Exactly. it doesn't matter which specific kodachrome it is. they all can be matched with digital, as well as exceeded for those interested in higher quality rather than be stuck in the past. it's not 1963 anymore. if abraham zapruder had a digital camera in 1963 rather than being stuck using a super-8 camera and kodachrome film, we'd know who shot jfk. |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
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. |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
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? Russell |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 05/11/2017 05:43 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Russell D. wrote: 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. you have *no* way to know what the temperature of the developer was. Astute. You don't disappoint. This is more typical: https://flic.kr/p/SiATq9 I have yet to even see a digital "Kodachrome" photo that looked likeh Kodachrome. Then the question should be: which specific Kodachrome vintage, 1936, 1954, 1963, et seq? They each have a very different tone. Exactly. it doesn't matter which specific kodachrome it is. they all can be matched with digital, as well as exceeded for those interested in higher quality rather than be stuck in the past. it's not 1963 anymore. if abraham zapruder had a digital camera in 1963 rather than being stuck using a super-8 camera and kodachrome film, we'd know who shot jfk. But, that is not what this is about, is it? |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Russell D.
wrote: This is more typical: https://flic.kr/p/SiATq9 I have yet to even see a digital "Kodachrome" photo that looked likeh Kodachrome. Then the question should be: which specific Kodachrome vintage, 1936, 1954, 1963, et seq? They each have a very different tone. Exactly. it doesn't matter which specific kodachrome it is. they all can be matched with digital, as well as exceeded for those interested in higher quality rather than be stuck in the past. it's not 1963 anymore. if abraham zapruder had a digital camera in 1963 rather than being stuck using a super-8 camera and kodachrome film, we'd know who shot jfk. But, that is not what this is about, is it? true, it's not about jfk. however, it *is* about kodachrome, which is what zapruder used. had he used a digital camera, the quality would have been *much* better, as would all of the other photos taken that day. unfortunately, they were all stuck with film. |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: What is the metric for visual appeal? What is the metric for fun? fun isn't the issue. Nope. Not for you. Some of the rest of us do like to enjoy our hobby, though. i never said otherwise. shoot all the film you want. have a blast. that was never the issue, no matter how hard you try to twist it into things it isn't. just don't go claiming the results you get from your film fun produces higher quality results than digital, because it doesn't. it's a physical impossibility. |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Thu, 11 May 2017 22:47:32 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote: On Thu, 11 May 2017 22:09:03 -0400, nospam wrote: What is the metric for visual appeal? What is the metric for fun? fun isn't the issue. Nope. Not for you. Some of the rest of us do like to enjoy our hobby, though. I certainly enjoy digital photography; probably more than I enjoyed film. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 2017-05-12 03:22:29 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Thu, 11 May 2017 22:47:32 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote: On Thu, 11 May 2017 22:09:03 -0400, nospam wrote: What is the metric for visual appeal? What is the metric for fun? fun isn't the issue. Nope. Not for you. Some of the rest of us do like to enjoy our hobby, though. I certainly enjoy digital photography; probably more than I enjoyed film. From 1958 until 1968 I enjoyed everything about having fun with the wet darkrooms I used starting with my father's, mine, school friends, & college friends. Then other stuff happened in my life and I was done with the wet darkroom and only used one a few times between 1971 and 1974, and never after that. All my darkroom stuff has been sold. With the arrival of digital photography and Photoshop my old enthusiasm was reborn. I find I can immerse myself in a whole variery of methods of post processing. I can apply wet darkroom methodology, or modern digital techniques. I can use the Adams Zone method, or my own harebrained ideas, all non-destructively. It is challenging and most importantly fun. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: What is the metric for visual appeal? What is the metric for fun? fun isn't the issue. Nope. Not for you. Some of the rest of us do like to enjoy our hobby, though. I certainly enjoy digital photography; probably more than I enjoyed film. Well, I enjoy photography. Not digital photography. Not film photography. Just photography. Going out and trying to find a subject that's interesting and capturing it in an interesting way. Doesn't make any difference how it's captured. I also enjoy post-processing digital images and seeing what I can get from them. I don't do it myself, but I can understand why someone would enjoy doing the same thing in a darkroom with film. nospam says fun isn't the issue. I think it's the whole issue. If he isn't enjoying photography, he should find another hobby. you're twisting things again, and this isn't about me either. nospam says the results are better with digital, but "results", for the hobby photographer is very subjective. What pleases the person who captures it, is the best result. missing the point *entirely*. |
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 |