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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
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. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Bill W
wrote: 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. exactly correct. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 4/20/2017 3:42 PM, 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. 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. 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. In addition to working strictly in one or the other medium, I also spent many years in "hybrid" media, where scanned film was used to make digital prints, digital images were converted to film prints to take advantage of its textural qualities, and so forth. There are differences, and the artist chooses the medium to achieve their vision. -- best regards, Neil |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Neil
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. 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. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
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. 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. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
rOn Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:22:02 -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". That means that the limit of digital performance is known. Therefore there is nothing new to be discovered or invented. 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". -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 04/20/2017 01:42 PM, 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. 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. Russell |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 04/20/2017 03:42 PM, 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. 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. -- Ken Hart |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 04/20/2017 04:20 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil 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. 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? Or have you been to the shows in Mr Neil's "neck of the woods"? -- Ken Hart |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:57:55 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote: 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. 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. It's not just that. For a fair comparison, Duck would also have to buy a new memory card every time he takes 36 photos, and then a new copy of Lightroom every time he needs to process some photos. And don't forget to keep those SD cards in the freezer, and keep your copy of LR away from the kids so they don't get poisoned or burned. |
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 04:31 AM |
Film Scanners | Gel | Digital Photography | 20 | February 21st 05 01:25 AM |
M/F film scanners - again? | Rod | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 17 | May 31st 04 04:14 PM |