below $1000 film vs digital

"jjs" wrote in message
...
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. I love the Tetenal room temperature RA-4 kit. I can make stunning
11x14s for $1 each in about 5 minutes.

I enjoy photography more when I display my prints on walls. Flipping
through yet another slideshow on my computer screen doesn't do it for me.

"Mike" wrote in message
m...
I do. I love the Tetenal room temperature RA-4 kit. I can make stunning
11x14s for $1 each in about 5 minutes.

You mean you can run each of three or four test prints for about $1 each,
five minutes a piece. Likely followed by a bit of head scratching, some
tentative dodging and burning, and then either settling for the close enough
results, or setting the neg aside to make a contrast mask later. You're
something special if you can hit them all perfect in three or less.

I enjoy photography more when I display my prints on walls. Flipping
through yet another slideshow on my computer screen doesn't do it for me.

Wet prints are dandy, but digital is faster, more certain, and often gives
the superior result. The only things I print myself these days are B&W, and
a good number of these end up getting scanned despite my best efforts in the
darkroom.

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 00:08:02 +0200, Vincent Becker
no_address@no_spam wrote:

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.

Thanks, Vincent (and my admiration of your impeccable English).

MikeWhy wrote:

"Mike" wrote in message
m...
I do. I love the Tetenal room temperature RA-4 kit. I can make stunning
11x14s for $1 each in about 5 minutes.

You mean you can run each of three or four test prints for about $1 each,
five minutes a piece. Likely followed by a bit of head scratching, some
tentative dodging and burning, and then either settling for the close
enough results, or setting the neg aside to make a contrast mask later.
You're something special if you can hit them all perfect in three or less.

Once you get the filtration for a film figured out, there is no problem
making the rest of them (no matter how many rolls you have) quickly. If
your exposure is good, even the time will be the same. And there is no
reason to use a whole piece of paper for "test prints".. This same color
balance to the film is needed whether you're scanning film or wet printing
it.

--

Stacey

Wet prints are dandy, but digital is faster, more certain, and often gives
the superior result.

Are you serious?

I won't disagree at all about it being faster, but giving a "superior
result"??!!

nospam wrote:

In article , Nick Zentena
wrote:

bagal wrote:
Here is a scenario Nick:

email from publisher: we have been let down by witheld copyright on
image
and needs shots of montains with snow. Can you get some to us by 9pm
tonight?

1 - search through a couple of thousand prints, find a few that are
suitable, get the original plus negs to publisher using courier express

2 - search the database, find pics, send images in appropriate format
by email.

which, if any, wins in the 21st century?

Find out the database is corrupt and none of the images can be saved.

restore from backups.

what if your studio has a fire and the negatives are destroyed? with
digital, the backups can be kept offsite, completely avoiding this
problem. and unlike film, copies are 100% identical - no generation
loss from a 'backup' of a negative.



Well since a medformat negative is WAY better than any digital camera, even
a dupe of a medformat negative is going to be better than a digital camera
shot.

Next...

--

Stacey

Sabineellen wrote:

Wet prints are dandy, but digital is faster, more certain, and often gives
the superior result.

Are you serious?

I won't disagree at all about it being faster, but giving a "superior
result"??!!


I think it's been so long since any of these guys have seen a good wet
print, they've forgotten what they look like. Now by "superiour result"
they mean they can clone out all the mistakes they made when shooting,
maybe so.
--

Stacey

Stacey wrote:

nospam wrote:
what if your studio has a fire and the negatives are destroyed? with
digital, the backups can be kept offsite, completely avoiding this
problem. and unlike film, copies are 100% identical - no generation
loss from a 'backup' of a negative.


Well since a medformat negative is WAY better than any digital camera, even
a dupe of a medformat negative is going to be better than a digital camera
shot.

Next...


Way better in what way? Sharpness, gradation, perhaps - in the original
negative. A duplicate negative will lose gradation, specially in the shadows
and highlights, and a dupe of a dupe will be crappola regardless of the format.
Go study emulsion response curves. Emulsions are non-linear in response to
light. A first-generation negative suffers tone compression in both shadows and
highlights. We are so used to viewing photographs with tonal compression that
we accept it as normal. Most people, however, will pick something is wrong with
a print from a duplicate negative because of the double dose of tonal
distortion, and more so if the dupe is made by re-photographing a print.

And when the tonality is crappola, who cares how sharp the image is? "Every
hair on her head is pin-sharp, but her skin tones look like pastry".

The outstanding characteristic of a digital image is the lack of non-linear
compression of the tones. Some people don't seem to like the results from
digital images because of tonal differences from what they expect in an image,
but IMHO digital tonality is better than film/print tonality. Sharpness matters
less if the image leaps out and hits one in the eye, as do many digi shots.

Colin D.

Hi Stacy

I respect your view and opinion

Can we agree to differ without creating offence?

If there is any good out of the comparision between digital & film it
appears that SLR cameras (film based) seem to be dropping in price. If I
was really interested in 35mm SLR I think I would pounce on some of the well
branded SLR offers on the go at the moment

In fact yesterday I nearly shelled out on a lovely Canon and 2 lens combo at
a price that is difficult to walk away from

I think this highlights the complexity if not of me but of the image taking
world. With many people switching over to digital image capture
distributors, manufacturers and retailers seek to move what may soon be
standing stock. By reducing the price quite considerablt it actually
creates a small blip in SLR devotees (well, for a while anyway)

I guess waiting for the best moment could bring good 35mm SLR at a very
reasonable price (give away?)

das B
"Stacey" wrote in message
...
nospam wrote:

In article , Nick Zentena
wrote:

bagal wrote:
Here is a scenario Nick:

email from publisher: we have been let down by witheld copyright on
image
and needs shots of montains with snow. Can you get some to us by 9pm
tonight?

1 - search through a couple of thousand prints, find a few that are
suitable, get the original plus negs to publisher using courier
express

2 - search the database, find pics, send images in appropriate format
by email.

which, if any, wins in the 21st century?

Find out the database is corrupt and none of the images can be saved.

restore from backups.

what if your studio has a fire and the negatives are destroyed? with
digital, the backups can be kept offsite, completely avoiding this
problem. and unlike film, copies are 100% identical - no generation
loss from a 'backup' of a negative.



Well since a medformat negative is WAY better than any digital camera,
even
a dupe of a medformat negative is going to be better than a digital camera
shot.

Next...

--

Stacey

"Sabineellen" wrote in message
...
Wet prints are dandy, but digital is faster, more certain, and often
gives
the superior result.

Are you serious?

I won't disagree at all about it being faster, but giving a "superior
result"??!!

Would I kid you? Yes, superior result, as in better. Drop off a jpg at your
local Costco and see for yourself. The print *is* a wet print, and you have
all the benefits of digital processing. Dry Creek Photo publishes up-to-date
profiles for Costco's Fujis and Noritsus. Desktop inkjets are at least on
par with home printing, but I didn't want to muddy the discussion with that.
Results vary depending on how well the system is setup. The big plus for
digital processing is contrast and color control that you don't have on an
enlarger.