![]() |
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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 18/04/2017 11:17 @wiz, -hh wrote:
Set up the slide projector at home, with a dSLR on a tripod next to it ... project, click, project, click ... this is a quick & dirty way to get a halfway decent quality image quickly, which is better than nothing. The slight snag in that technique is that it only works with slide film. Colour negative and b&w are simply impossible to use for this. And they are by far the largest amount of film still used - at least in my case. I'm perfectly happy with the Coolscan 9000 I got many years ago and the Plustek Opticfilm120 a couple of years ago. For the Nikon, I reckon Nikonscan works fine with slides. But for b&w and colour negative, vuescan walks all over any other software on both scanners. I won't even mention the utter crap that comes with the Plustek and makes it so much more expensive as a result... If only Plustek woke up and started shipping that scanner WITHOUT that included software, they'd have a product $500+ less expensive... I have tried a slide duplicator with a digital camera for slides but am not happy with all results. The max rez digital camera I have is 16Mpixels and that is not enough for some of the best images. It also does not have any way of using infra-red scanning for elimination of scratches and such. Keeping things sufficiently flat is also a huge challenge. But it does a satisfactory job for average slides - that are the majority of the stuff I have on that film base. What I've found that it really comes down to is that it is still a challenge to make the time to grind through the film collection, and when I finally do, two things hold me up: Indeed. Line scanners are all very slow and no one has done a good job of using a simple digital camera sensor scanner. Even though it should be relatively simple to get a good 20Mpixel scanner system based on those and not necessarily over-expensive. Not sure about the infra-red scratch removal, though. The few scanners around that use digital sensors are useless in that they barely reach 5Mpixels in rez, have poor focusing systems and flatness support and produce results only as jpgs instead of RAW. That makes them useless for any needed post-processing adjustments. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 3:06:58 AM UTC-4, Sandman wrote:
-hh wrote: Set up the slide projector at home, with a dSLR on a tripod next to it ... project, click, project, click ... this is a quick & dirty way to get a halfway decent quality image quickly, which is better than nothing. Problem with this is of course that you are limited to the resolving power of the slide projector lens, which usually is really crappy. Also, the smoothness of the projector surface, which unless it's a movie-grade projection screen usually is really poor. Very true, which is why I referred to this approach as "quick & dirty" as well as "halfway decent". Point is simply that it is, however slight, still "better than nothing", and gets there without a huge personal time/effort investment. -hh |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 4:52:25 AM UTC-4, Noons wrote:
On 18/04/2017 11:17 @wiz, -hh wrote: Set up the slide projector at home, with a dSLR on a tripod next to it ... project, click, project, click ... this is a quick & dirty way to get a halfway decent quality image quickly, which is better than nothing. The slight snag in that technique is that it only works with slide film. Pragmatically, true enough. And it only works for those slides for which have been mounted. I raise this point because for a lot of my old UW photography images, the local ("next day") E6 processing was done by hand and you got back the uncut strip, unmounted (the service of slide mounting simply wasn't offered at these dive resorts & Liveaboards, But because the overall photgraphic yield was also typically quite low, it wasn't considered to be a particularly big deal for the photographer to spend an hour at a light box and cutting up the strips by hand and hand-mounting the ~4 keepers per roll. Plus, it was slightly cheaper. In retrospect, the savings was trivial, but at the time, a couple of bucks per roll, times 20 rolls would pay for another full day of scuba diving. Colour negative and b&w are simply impossible to use for this. And they are by far the largest amount of film still used - at least in my case. I'm perfectly happy with the Coolscan 9000 I got many years ago and the Plustek Opticfilm120 a couple of years ago. For the Nikon, I reckon Nikonscan works fine with slides. But for b&w and colour negative, vuescan walks all over any other software on both scanners. I won't even mention the utter crap that comes with the Plustek and makes it so much more expensive as a result... If only Plustek woke up and started shipping that scanner WITHOUT that included software, they'd have a product $500+ less expensive... I have tried a slide duplicator with a digital camera for slides but am not happy with all results. The max rez digital camera I have is 16Mpixels and that is not enough for some of the best images. It also does not have any way of using infra-red scanning for elimination of scratches and such. Keeping things sufficiently flat is also a huge challenge. But it does a satisfactory job for average slides - that are the majority of the stuff I have on that film base. What I've found that it really comes down to is that it is still a challenge to make the time to grind through the film collection, and when I finally do, two things hold me up: Indeed. Line scanners are all very slow and no one has done a good job of using a simple digital camera sensor scanner. Even though it should be relatively simple to get a good 20Mpixel scanner system based on those and not necessarily over-expensive. Not sure about the infra-red scratch removal, though. The few scanners around that use digital sensors are useless in that they barely reach 5Mpixels in rez, have poor focusing systems and flatness support and produce results only as jpgs instead of RAW. That makes them useless for any needed post-processing adjustments. My brother has one of these and their general appeal is similar to the slide projector process I mentioned: they're a "quick & dirty". For some people (& uses) that's adequate, but when the user is more meticulous, there's going to be a lot of time spent in post-processing no matter what, so starting with a better scan becomes more beneficial. -hh |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. you definitely are if you're using film. if you're satisfied with mediocre, go for it. Mediocre is relative. relative to what? how can anyone be bored with it? Pretty easily. And many do. not that many and fewer every day. False. Film sales are increasing. that must explain why kodak went bankrupt and almost no film cameras are made anymore. it also explains why so many camera stores have closed, mainly the ones that made their money with film processing. it also explains why kodachrome processing is no more. Try it you'll like it. i did. digital is way the hell better. you should try it sometime, and with an open mind. Oh, wait your not a photographer, just a talker. insults means you have nothing |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: Try it you'll like it. Oh, wait your not a photographer, just a talker. 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. you don't speak for all film photographers (or any, actually) and you have *no* idea why any given film photographer chooses film. i also wasn't talking about some fuzzy unquantifiable 'experience'. the problem is that film photographers claim the impossible. they claim film can do things that digital cannot which is flat out false. they claim things such as digital doesn't have 'the film look' without ever saying which film (i.e., it's completely meaningless). they don't realize that digital can have whatever 'film look' they want, all from the same capture. velvia today, kodachrome tomorrow. it's all there. digital is far more capable than film ever was and can do everything film can do and quite a bit more. this is a mathematically provable fact. people are welcome to choose whatever they want, but should do based on facts. most film photographers do so based on myths. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Noons
wrote: The only aspect where digital blows away film is in sensitivity- or ISO, if you prefer that terminology. nope. digital blows away film in *every* metric. Disagree completely and I have the facts and results to prove it. no you don't, since no such facts exist. Note that I never said I don't use digital. apparently you don't know how to use digital to its maximum performance. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:40:34 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Noons wrote: The only aspect where digital blows away film is in sensitivity- or ISO, if you prefer that terminology. nope. digital blows away film in *every* metric. Disagree completely and I have the facts and results to prove it. no you don't, since no such facts exist. 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. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2017-04-19 21:48:02 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:40:34 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Noons wrote: The only aspect where digital blows away film is in sensitivity- or ISO, if you prefer that terminology. nope. digital blows away film in *every* metric. Disagree completely and I have the facts and results to prove it. no you don't, since no such facts exist. 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. With a new camera with features, capability, and performance I am unfamiliar with it is all a continuing education. ....and this is week one. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:56:39 -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? Come now ... -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |