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 |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Fri, 12 May 2017 19:58:02 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens 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*. It is an absolute given that whenever you accuse someone of the missing the point, the point missed is the point that you are the only one concerned with. nope. the topic is whether digital can duplicate the film look and whether it can exceed what film can do. But that is no longer the current point: just read above. whether someone has fun shooting photos was *never* the issue. It wasn't the original issue but it has been since I wrote Message-ID: not far back in the thread. that was after tony decided to bash. Even if you are right, what has that got to do with it? because i'm responding to his attacks. do try to keep up. You should learn to do it without messing up unrelated branches of the thread. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: the topic is whether digital can duplicate the film look and whether it can exceed what film can do. But that is no longer the current point: just read above. whether someone has fun shooting photos was *never* the issue. It wasn't the original issue but it has been since I wrote Message-ID: not far back in the thread. that was after tony decided to bash. Even if you are right, what has that got to do with it? because i'm responding to his attacks. do try to keep up. You should learn to do it without messing up unrelated branches of the thread. nothing was messed up. |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 2017-05-13 02:31:52 +0000, Ron C said:
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. Interesting. This shot and rendition might get closer to the softening of edges, and coarser Tri-X salt 'n' pepper grain that you are trying for. https://www.dropbox.com/s/mgw8teb17zmzvlz/DSF4472-E.jpg However ultimately the end result should be an image which works in one's mind's eye. For that sometimes a good B&W treatment with some appropriate film emulation expresses what is needed. Sometimes a rendition in color expresses just the right mood. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ohmkg7fwk3vbawv/DSF1372-E3.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Sat, 13 May 2017 01:00:17 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: the topic is whether digital can duplicate the film look and whether it can exceed what film can do. But that is no longer the current point: just read above. whether someone has fun shooting photos was *never* the issue. It wasn't the original issue but it has been since I wrote Message-ID: not far back in the thread. that was after tony decided to bash. Even if you are right, what has that got to do with it? because i'm responding to his attacks. do try to keep up. You should learn to do it without messing up unrelated branches of the thread. nothing was messed up. Only in your mind. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
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 |