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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Bill W
wrote: 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. same here. digital can do everything film can do and a whole lot more. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:16:50 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote: On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:42:58 -0700, Bill W wrote: On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:08:41 -0600, "Russell D." wrote: On 04/18/2017 11:45 PM, Tony Cooper wrote: On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:06:55 -0700, Bill W wrote: On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:48:12 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote: On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:01:41 -0700, Bill W wrote: On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:22:15 -0600, "Russell D." wrote: On 04/18/2017 05:42 PM, nospam wrote: In article , Russell D. wrote: buy a used nikon coolscan, scan all of your film, then sell it when you're done, as you won't be needing it anymore. Exactly what I was thinking when I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored with digital and started shooting film again. bored with digital? there's so much more it can do versus film. Why do I need it to do more? why limit yourself? I'm not. if you're satisfied with mediocre, go for it. Mediocre is relative. how can anyone be bored with it? Pretty easily. And many do. not that many and fewer every day. False. Film sales are increasing. Try it you'll like it. Oh, wait your not a photographer, just a talker. Russell It's not like nospam needs my help, but your criticism is unfair. There are two sides to photography - technical and artistic. Nospam has never joined in any threads regarding any photos that anyone has posted. He has never criticized any photo from an artistic viewpoint - it's just not what he does here. He clearly has vast technical knowledge on many photography related subjects, and the technical side is all he *ever* posts on. And that says absolutely nothing about his photographic skills. He could be a star, and he might suck. Who knows, and who cares? Any criticism of his technical comments are certainly understandable, right or wrong, but commenting on his skills as a photographer makes no sense at all. While your point is somewhat valid, but nospam commenting on artistic choice makes no sense. And, shooting film is an artistic choice. For him to say that capturing on film is "mediocre" is like telling an artist who paints with water colors that the choice of water colors will yield a mediocre result compared to using oil. Or that an charcoal sketch is a mediocre painting compared to trompe l'oeil. I disagree. The way I see it, his comments on film vs digital are strictly technical. To me he is saying that there is *nothing* you can do with film that you cannot do with digital, so there is no artistic choice to be make in the first place. No, the difference is not technical. From an artistic point of view, how you get there is part of the artistic effort. The film experience goes from taking the photograph, to processing the negative, to making prints. That whole experience is what the film photographer enjoys. In digital, you take the photograph, process the files, and make the print. Similar steps, but not the steps that the film enthusiasts enjoys. I enjoy the digital steps, but I recognize that not everyone feels the same way. If you don't understand - as nospam doesn't - the enjoyment of going through the film steps, and think only of the result, you'll never understand why the film photographer does what he does. Any non-professional who feels that the only thing that matters in photography is the result is - in my opinion - really missing something in this wonderful hobby. Excellent points, Tony. That last paragraph is spot on. Russell Tony gets it. Well, I don't. I started with film, and had the requisite bathroom darkroom. The only thing I didn't do was develop the film. Going through the film steps, which you and Tony enjoyed, drove me up the wall. I hated every bit of it, and nearly gave up on photography. But more to the point, I disagree completely that the film steps are *artistically* different from the digital steps. You are doing the same thing, only with one you are using toxic chemicals, awkwardly working slowly with trial and error, whereas with the other, you are working towards identical artistic goals, but working much more quickly. And the more quickly you can work, the more time you can spend getting things exactly as you want them. Better yet, when you fumble around with digital, all you waste is some electron flow and some time, as opposed to some pricey chemicals and paper. I respect those who work with film, it's hard. But I still don't think there is any remaining legitimate reason for it, except for personal entertainment, or sense of achievement. (Laughing!) What else *is* there for the non-professional photographer? Unless we are getting paid to take photographs, the only reason we do so is as a form of entertainment and to gain a sense of achievement. Only? Not true. Documenting family memories, or rare, unexpected events are just a couple of other reasons. And, is either of those not a legitimate reason to pursue the hobby? When it comes to hobby activities, anything that a person does because they enjoy doing it or gain a sense of achievement from it is legitimate. No one can argue with that, and no one is. That last sentence of yours in the penultimate paragraph is a hoot! Pricy chemicals and paper? Pretty much everyone reading this has several thousand dollars invested in digital camera kit and software. And, some like the Duck, are contemplating spending a couple of thou more upgrading and adding to what they already have. And, he's burning a lot of gas and time driving out to take snapshots of a field of wildflowers. Like I mentioned in another post, I don't have to buy a new SD card every 36 photos, and new processing software for every batch of photos. There's not a non-professional here who can justify the time and expense of photography - film or digital - if you consider what doesn't need to be done to not be a "legitimate" expenditure of money or time. Agreed. 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. A hobby is not supposed to be the most efficient way to get something done. It's supposed to be the most enjoyable way to get it done. Only a soulless cretin would say "i also wasn't talking about some fuzzy unquantifiable 'experience'" when it is the experience that is what a hobby is all about. Again, no argument. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 2017-04-20 21:16:50 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:42:58 -0700, Bill W wrote: Snip Well, I don't. I started with film, and had the requisite bathroom darkroom. The only thing I didn't do was develop the film. Going through the film steps, which you and Tony enjoyed, drove me up the wall. I hated every bit of it, and nearly gave up on photography. But more to the point, I disagree completely that the film steps are *artistically* different from the digital steps. You are doing the same thing, only with one you are using toxic chemicals, awkwardly working slowly with trial and error, whereas with the other, you are working towards identical artistic goals, but working much more quickly. And the more quickly you can work, the more time you can spend getting things exactly as you want them. Better yet, when you fumble around with digital, all you waste is some electron flow and some time, as opposed to some pricey chemicals and paper. I respect those who work with film, it's hard. But I still don't think there is any remaining legitimate reason for it, except for personal entertainment, or sense of achievement. (Laughing!) What else *is* there for the non-professional photographer? Unless we are getting paid to take photographs, the only reason we do so is as a form of entertainment and to gain a sense of achievement. Yup! And, is either of those not a legitimate reason to pursue the hobby? When it comes to hobby activities, anything that a person does because they enjoy doing it or gain a sense of achievement from it is legitimate. I never for one minute had a thought of using photography for anything other than a hobby. That last sentence of yours in the penultimate paragraph is a hoot! Pricy chemicals and paper? So much more than chemicals and paper (though I still buy paper and ink). There are tanks, clips, thermometers, trays, enlarger, I even had a print dryer-glazer. Then there is plumbing and the pretense of responsible chemical disposal. All of my darkroom equipment was sold not long after I left college and I went into something of a photography hiatus for many years with just the occasional roll of 35mm run through either my Pentax or my Yashica, and processed and printed by various labs. ....and then came digital and my enthusiasm was revived. Once I retired I had the time to indulge myself once again. Pretty much everyone reading this has several thousand dollars invested in digital camera kit and software. Yup! Check with PeterN, Eric, Jonas, Davoud (David), Alan Browne, and the two of us. I don't think there is a single pro photographer among us. And, some like the Duck, are contemplating spending a couple of thou more upgrading and adding to what they already have. Just spent $1599 on my new camera, and I will probably buy another lens or three. What I have found with the Fujifilm X-series cameras, has been a return to thinking about photography as if I were shooting film, which is something I never experienced with any of my Nikons, and I am enjoying myself. And, he's burning a lot of gas and time driving out to take snapshots of a field of wildflowers. Why not? It was just an hour drive each way, and I had nothing else to do. Ain't retirement fun? There's not a non-professional here who can justify the time and expense of photography - film or digital - if you consider what doesn't need to be done to not be a "legitimate" expenditure of money or time. Not one cent of what I have spent on photography, film & digital, over 50+ years as a hobbyist photographer can be explained away rationally. 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? I have known folks who did some of the most obscure and pointless (and sometimes expensive) things as hobbies. A hobby is not supposed to be the most efficient way to get something done. It's supposed to be the most enjoyable way to get it done. Only a soulless cretin would say "i also wasn't talking about some fuzzy unquantifiable 'experience'" when it is the experience that is what a hobby is all about. Yup! -- Regards, Savageduck |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 2017-04-20 21:57:55 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:16:50 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote: --- snip --- Pretty much everyone reading this has several thousand dollars invested in digital camera kit and software. And, some like the Duck, are contemplating spending a couple of thou more upgrading and adding to what they already have. And, he's burning a lot of gas and time driving out to take snapshots of a field of wildflowers. And were anyone to do it all with film they would have several thousand dollars invested in camera kit, development tank, trays and enlarger. Not to forget a darkroom of some kind, bench, plumbing and drainage. Exactly! Over the years I have variously used plates, sheet film, roll film and digital and I have no hesitation in saying that digital photography is very much to be preferred. Digital revived my enthusiasm as a hobbyist photographer, and led me to spend thousands of $$$. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 19:05:29 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Ken Hart wrote: There are many things that can be done in both film and digital to equal accomplishment. There are also things that can be done better in one medium than the other, with results that may or may not be appreciated by viewers. absolutely false. anything that can be done with film can be done with digital (and with a lot less hassle) but *not* the other way around. 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. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 19:05:28 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Tony Cooper wrote: Well, I don't. I started with film, and had the requisite bathroom darkroom. The only thing I didn't do was develop the film. Going through the film steps, which you and Tony enjoyed, drove me up the wall. I hated every bit of it, and nearly gave up on photography. But more to the point, I disagree completely that the film steps are *artistically* different from the digital steps. You are doing the same thing, only with one you are using toxic chemicals, awkwardly working slowly with trial and error, whereas with the other, you are working towards identical artistic goals, but working much more quickly. And the more quickly you can work, the more time you can spend getting things exactly as you want them. Better yet, when you fumble around with digital, all you waste is some electron flow and some time, as opposed to some pricey chemicals and paper. I respect those who work with film, it's hard. But I still don't think there is any remaining legitimate reason for it, except for personal entertainment, or sense of achievement. (Laughing!) What else *is* there for the non-professional photographer? Unless we are getting paid to take photographs, the only reason we do so is as a form of entertainment and to gain a sense of achievement. you don't speak for everyone. Whereas you do? And, is either of those not a legitimate reason to pursue the hobby? When it comes to hobby activities, anything that a person does because they enjoy doing it or gain a sense of achievement from it is legitimate. nobody said otherwise. the point is that no matter what 'film look' one wants from film, that very same look can be done with digital. That last sentence of yours in the penultimate paragraph is a hoot! Pricy chemicals and paper? it's more expensive than for digital, which requires no chemicals (i.e., free) and inexpensive paper that has no special storage requirements. Pretty much everyone reading this has several thousand dollars invested in digital camera kit and software. And, some like the Duck, are contemplating spending a couple of thou more upgrading and adding to what they already have. And, he's burning a lot of gas and time driving out to take snapshots of a field of wildflowers. so what? that has nothing to do with film or digital. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 19:05:28 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Note that I never said I don't use digital. apparently you don't know how to use digital to its maximum performance. Probably nobody does. plenty of people do. Do you mean there is nothing new to be still discovered or invented? no. how the hell did you get that crazy idea from what i wrote????? Come now ... indeed. You wrote that you think that "plenty of people do" when it comes to using "digital to its maximum performance". correct. 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? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
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. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Note that I never said I don't use digital. apparently you don't know how to use digital to its maximum performance. Probably nobody does. plenty of people do. Do you mean there is nothing new to be still discovered or invented? no. how the hell did you get that crazy idea from what i wrote????? Come now ... indeed. You wrote that you think that "plenty of people do" when it comes to using "digital to its maximum performance". correct. 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. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 2017-04-20 23:08:23 +0000, Bill W said:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:16:50 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote: On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:42:58 -0700, Bill W wrote: Snip Well, I don't. I started with film, and had the requisite bathroom darkroom. The only thing I didn't do was develop the film. Going through the film steps, which you and Tony enjoyed, drove me up the wall. I hated every bit of it, and nearly gave up on photography. But more to the point, I disagree completely that the film steps are *artistically* different from the digital steps. You are doing the same thing, only with one you are using toxic chemicals, awkwardly working slowly with trial and error, whereas with the other, you are working towards identical artistic goals, but working much more quickly. And the more quickly you can work, the more time you can spend getting things exactly as you want them. Better yet, when you fumble around with digital, all you waste is some electron flow and some time, as opposed to some pricey chemicals and paper. I respect those who work with film, it's hard. But I still don't think there is any remaining legitimate reason for it, except for personal entertainment, or sense of achievement. (Laughing!) What else *is* there for the non-professional photographer? Unless we are getting paid to take photographs, the only reason we do so is as a form of entertainment and to gain a sense of achievement. Only? Not true. Documenting family memories, or rare, unexpected events are just a couple of other reasons. There is so much more with whatever trip a brainstorm takes you. And, is either of those not a legitimate reason to pursue the hobby? When it comes to hobby activities, anything that a person does because they enjoy doing it or gain a sense of achievement from it is legitimate. No one can argue with that, and no one is. Yup! That last sentence of yours in the penultimate paragraph is a hoot! Pricy chemicals and paper? Pretty much everyone reading this has several thousand dollars invested in digital camera kit and software. And, some like the Duck, are contemplating spending a couple of thou more upgrading and adding to what they already have. And, he's burning a lot of gas and time driving out to take snapshots of a field of wildflowers. Like I mentioned in another post, I don't have to buy a new SD card every 36 photos, and new processing software for every batch of photos. There's not a non-professional here who can justify the time and expense of photography - film or digital - if you consider what doesn't need to be done to not be a "legitimate" expenditure of money or time. Agreed. 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. For the last few years I have been using emulation software with my Photoshop and Lightroom workflow, because I wanted to achieve something more than a clean, sharp (are you listening Peter?) clinical digital image. I got much of what I was seeking with the now free NIK Color Efex Pro4, Analog Efex Pro2, and Silver Efex Pro2. I have found that the best of this type of software is Alien Skin ExposureX2. It is to me very much the same as dabbling in the darkroom in days of yore. All without the romance and chemical smell of the wet darkroom. The results are indistinguishable from what I produced with Tri-X 50 years ago. My latest adventure with digital photographic "film" nostalgia has been with the Fujifilm in-camera film emulations, especially their B&W Acros emulation. The bottom line is, I am enjoying myself. I am not alone in enjoying the Fujifilm in-camera and SOOC emulations. Each of these links are to related articles in the same blog: http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/2017/1/29/fuji-acros-amazing-jpegs-with-film-like-grain http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/2017/3/19/forget-raw-and-go-acros-the-definitive-review http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/2017/4/2/three-intuitive-settings-that-will-make-your-fuji-xt2-disappear A hobby is not supposed to be the most efficient way to get something done. It's supposed to be the most enjoyable way to get it done. Only a soulless cretin would say "i also wasn't talking about some fuzzy unquantifiable 'experience'" when it is the experience that is what a hobby is all about. Again, no argument. -- 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 |