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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
For quality and cost-effectiveness, buy a Mamiya C220 or C330 with the 55mm lens set and possibly the 80mm and 135mm lens sets, or the 105 and 180mm lens sets. (No longer in production, so will have to be second-hand - maybe from KEH). Buy a heavy tripod (and use it). Then get a reasonable flat bed scanner with film scanning facility built-in. You should get a reasonable photo-editing package bundled with the scanner - if not, download the Gimp from www.gimp.org. You will be getting quite large files - you will need a reasonable amount of memory - preferably 512Mb of RAM, and either a large hard drive or be prepared to burn a lot of CDROMs or DVDs. This is a set-up I have, and negs I have scanned and manipulated myself I can print (even using a consumer photo-printer) to a higher technical quality than pro labs have managed with hand-prints in the past using traditional printing methods. And when I get a professional print from a pro lab using my digital file - Wow! As another poster wrote, you could buy a 35mm SLR with 2 or 3 prime lenses and a dedicated quality film scanner. The results would be almost as good, unless you wanted to print above 10X8inches, and could be more convenient My understanding was that good 35mm technique, combined with a dedicated 35mm film scanner, would exceed the quality of MF with a flatbed scanner. I'm curious... |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 22:11:59 +0000 (UTC), "Keith Patterson"
wrote: For quality and cost-effectiveness, buy a Mamiya C220 or C330 Are the differences between the two models significant? |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
"Mike" wrote: My understanding was that good 35mm technique, combined with a dedicated 35mm film scanner, would exceed the quality of MF with a flatbed scanner. That may have been true prior to the 4870, but if the sample on the following page is right, the 4870 shifts the balance to MF. The 4870 isn't quite 2700 dpi, but it's clearly more than 2000 dpi, and that's 3000 x 4400 pixels from 645, which is way ahead of 35mm. http://www5e.biglobe.ne.jp/~longnose/scanner_test.html David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
For quality and cost-effectiveness, buy a Mamiya C220 or C330 Are the differences between the two models significant? Yes, the C220 is more simple, the main difference being that it lacks the very useful parrallax indicator. But it is lighter and cheaper. See this page for a lot of details: http://www.btinternet.com/~g.a.patte...q/m_faq-1.html -- Vincent Becker Photographie et appareils anciens - Photography and classic cameras URL:http://www.lumieresenboite.com Merci de passer par mon site pour les réponses par courriel |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
In article , Mike wrote:
My understanding was that good 35mm technique, combined with a dedicated 35mm film scanner, would exceed the quality of MF with a flatbed scanner. The flatbed scanner would have to be quite poor to make that so, but regardless - it presumes scanning. Doesn't anyf*king body make real wet prints anymore? |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 14:39:20 -0500, Mike wrote:
My understanding was that good 35mm technique, combined with a dedicated 35mm film scanner, would exceed the quality of MF with a flatbed scanner. I'm curious... Flatbed scanners come in all sorts of resolutions. If you're talking about a sub-$100 consumer model, that's true. OTOH, if you're talking about a Creo EverSmart Supreme II, with 5600-dpi optical resolution, a DMax of 4.3, and optional oil mounting station, well, no. -- Michael Benveniste -- Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
jjs wrote:
In article , Mike wrote: My understanding was that good 35mm technique, combined with a dedicated 35mm film scanner, would exceed the quality of MF with a flatbed scanner. The flatbed scanner would have to be quite poor to make that so, but regardless - it presumes scanning. Doesn't anyf*king body make real wet prints anymore? I do and I also find it comical everyone compares digital to scanned film. -- Stacey |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
Stacey wrote:
The flatbed scanner would have to be quite poor to make that so, but regardless - it presumes scanning. Doesn't anyf*king body make real wet prints anymore? I do and I also find it comical everyone compares digital to scanned film. And than scan those wet-prints again as soon as you want to do something with the image other than hang it on the office wall??? |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
In article , "Q.G. de Bakker"
wrote: Stacey wrote: [...] I do and I also find it comical everyone compares digital to scanned film. And than scan those wet-prints again as soon as you want to do something with the image other than hang it on the office wall??? I don't quite understand your remark, Q.G., but I do know another particularly productive (and often published) photographer who scans 11x14" silver B&W prints rather than negatives, and for good reasons. First, he scans prints only to present samples on the web. And regardless of the hard metrics of scanning MF negatives, he's a printer through and through. Believe me, I've done some scans of MF negatives to show him what one can do, and while he is very impressed with the control that post-film digital work can do, he does does wet prints. I think his rationale is the same as mine: it has something to do with the craft of wet, conventional printing: a craft unto itself. BTW, I have been investigating making silver negatives from digital scans for two years (thanks to Dan Burkholder's most excellent research), but it still isn't the same thing. Variability between prints due to the hands of the printer is a _good thing_, imho. But there I go digressing into conventional MF photography again. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
Stacey wrote: The flatbed scanner would have to be quite poor to make that so, but regardless - it presumes scanning. Doesn't anyf*king body make real wet prints anymore? I do and I also find it comical everyone compares digital to scanned film. And than scan those wet-prints again as soon as you want to do something with the image other than hang it on the office wall??? Yep, it works fine for me, YMMV. You can always have the film scanned if you need it -that- good for other applications. I've never found the need for it. My point was people always compare film, using a consumer grade "home" scanner they can afford, to digital cameras. Just like this person saying 35mm is better because they compare 35mm film scanned using a good film scanner vs medformat film scanned on a cheap flatbed. Yea that makes sense to me. Hey I know, I can scan 35mm film on a cheap flatbed and the results from my 640X480 polaroid digicam look better so that $50 digicam is better than my OM 35mm gear! Why "dumb down" film (or medformat) to compare it to other thing? Have the best wet print you can have made and compare that to see which is best. Just because they can't afford a medformat scanner that is as good as a 35mm one, doesn't mean 35mm is "better". It just means they can't afford (or don't want to buy as in my case) a good medformat scanner! -- Stacey |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Leica digital back info.... | Barney | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | June 30th 04 12:45 AM |
below $1000 film vs digital | Sabineellen | 35mm Photo Equipment | 8 | June 15th 04 07:13 AM |
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... | Todd Bailey | Film & Labs | 0 | May 27th 04 08:12 AM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |