A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Lens recommendation for dia film reproduction?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 15th 21, 12:31 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 696
Default Lens recommendation for dia film reproduction?

On 2021-02-12 02:41, wrote:
My plan is to make RAW files of may old dia pictures



.... forgot to mention, you won't be able to make "RAW" as that usually
implies in digital photography, but definitely TIFF which will carry the
full depth of colour for each scanner pixel location in CYMK (or other
colour schemes if you prefer), but not RGB bayer with the raw values for
each pixel.

tl, dr version: TIFF is a fine format.

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens
  #2  
Old February 15th 21, 01:04 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Lens recommendation for dia film reproduction?

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

My plan is to make RAW files of may old dia pictures



... forgot to mention, you won't be able to make "RAW" as that usually
implies in digital photography, but definitely TIFF which will carry the
full depth of colour for each scanner pixel location in CYMK (or other
colour schemes if you prefer), but not RGB bayer with the raw values for
each pixel.


he originally wanted to know what lens to use on his camera (see
subject), in which case raw would be the proper choice. tiff should
*never* be used in a digital camera. there is *no* benefit and only
drawbacks.

if he decides to use a scanner, then tiff would be the proper choice in
almost every case (this is not one of the exceptions).

tl, dr version: TIFF is a fine format.


for certain things it is. not all.
  #3  
Old February 15th 21, 07:42 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 696
Default Lens recommendation for dia film reproduction?

On 2021-02-14 19:04, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

My plan is to make RAW files of may old dia pictures



... forgot to mention, you won't be able to make "RAW" as that usually
implies in digital photography, but definitely TIFF which will carry the
full depth of colour for each scanner pixel location in CYMK (or other
colour schemes if you prefer), but not RGB bayer with the raw values for
each pixel.


he originally wanted to know what lens to use on his camera (see
subject),


The thread turned to don't do that, use a scanner.

Thus TIFF...


--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens
  #4  
Old February 17th 21, 07:48 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Lens recommendation for dia film reproduction?

On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 13:42:40 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

he originally wanted to know what lens to use on his camera (see
subject),


The thread turned to don't do that, use a scanner.


Exactly. When the whole approach that was being considered is so
completely, utterly and totally mistaken, there's very little point
in refining each part of the "chain of mistakes"

Use a film/slide/dia scanner. Or just don't bother.

  #5  
Old February 17th 21, 04:06 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 838
Default Lens recommendation for dia film reproduction?

On Wednesday, February 17, 2021 at 1:48:16 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 13:42:40 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

he originally wanted to know what lens to use on his camera (see
subject),


The thread turned to don't do that, use a scanner.

Exactly. When the whole approach that was being considered is so
completely, utterly and totally mistaken, there's very little point
in refining each part of the "chain of mistakes"

Use a film/slide/dia scanner. Or just don't bother.


Having gone down that road, I'm going to disagree:

The touch labor involved in "doing it right" with a proper scanner means
that in most instances, it becomes a "don't bother" project.

As such, my advice is:

Step 1:
Use whatever "lousy" capture process you can that's fast & easy so that
at least a copy - no matter how crappy - actually gets accomplished.

Step 2:
Use this output to cherrypick what images are actually worth the effort of a high quality scan

Step 3:
Do (or pay for) the high quality scans on the cherrypicked subset


Overall, this is the "Better is the Enemy of Good Enough" paradigm put into practice.

-hh
  #6  
Old February 17th 21, 05:06 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Lens recommendation for dia film reproduction?

On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 07:06:48 -0800 (PST), -hh
wrote:

Use a film/slide/dia scanner. Or just don't bother.


Having gone down that road, I'm going to disagree:

The touch labor involved in "doing it right" with a proper scanner means
that in most instances, it becomes a "don't bother" project.

As such, my advice is:

Step 1:
Use whatever "lousy" capture process you can that's fast & easy so that
at least a copy - no matter how crappy - actually gets accomplished.

Step 2:
Use this output to cherrypick what images are actually worth the effort of a high quality scan

Step 3:
Do (or pay for) the high quality scans on the cherrypicked subset


Scanning film-based images is unavoidably going to involve doing a lot
of work. Best done methodically and systematically.

Given that, my experience doing exactly this is that if you're going
to have to do a lot of work, it makes sense to only do it the once.

Garbage-In, Garbage-Out, then do it right like you should have done it
in the first place isn't it for me. What use is a "crappy copy" to
man or beast? Or even hundreds -- thousands -- of "crappy copies"?

Obviously, there has to be selection -- judgment -- about which images
are worth scanning, and which one's aren't. (Or, often which images
are worth scanning in order to keep a good/important part of an
otherwise faulty or lousy total image).

However, in my experience, that kind of judgment is best done during
the scanning process (given that the scanning process will generally
include an initial pre-scan before the scan proper). It's at that
point when one decides whether to go ahead with an image or to skip
it.

Doing twenty years' worth of pre-scans in the hope of then selecting
which ones to go back to again in order to do properly is both
inefficient and soul-destroying. You need to take a decision while
your engagement with the particular image is fresh, not months down
the road.

  #7  
Old February 17th 21, 10:34 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 838
Default Lens recommendation for dia film reproduction?

On Wednesday, February 17, 2021 at 11:06:59 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 07:06:48 -0800 (PST), -hh wrote:

Use a film/slide/dia scanner. Or just don't bother.


Having gone down that road, I'm going to disagree:

The touch labor involved in "doing it right" with a proper scanner means
that in most instances, it becomes a "don't bother" project.

As such, my advice is:

Step 1:
Use whatever "lousy" capture process you can that's fast & easy so that
at least a copy - no matter how crappy - actually gets accomplished.

Step 2:
Use this output to cherrypick what images are actually worth the effort of a high quality scan

Step 3:
Do (or pay for) the high quality scans on the cherrypicked subset

Scanning film-based images is unavoidably going to involve doing a lot
of work. Best done methodically and systematically.

Given that, my experience doing exactly this is that if you're going
to have to do a lot of work, it makes sense to only do it the once.


Sure, but it also depends extensively on what options one has for one's
specific circumstances.

For example, if one has slides already in carousels, so to view them
is merely to set up the projector and screen ... then add a dSLR on a
tripod aimed & focused at the screen and fire away!

Alternatively, if one is doing this with an family elder, run a video and
with each image, prompt them to talk about it, to identify where, or
who's in it ("Aunt Ethyl on the left"), etc.

Garbage-In, Garbage-Out, then do it right like you should have done it
in the first place isn't it for me. What use is a "crappy copy" to
man or beast? Or even hundreds -- thousands -- of "crappy copies"?


FWIW, I'm using hyperbola when I'm saying "crappy" he what I'm
really referring to is to obtain a technically suitable image, but one that's
not just the technologically maximum possible extracted that would
not be subject to any criticism by nospam for falling short of perfection:
this is intended to be a deliberate trade-off of quality for the benefit of
significantly reduce this phase's touch labor contribution.

Obviously, there has to be selection -- judgment -- about which images
are worth scanning, and which one's aren't. (Or, often which images
are worth scanning in order to keep a good/important part of an
otherwise faulty or lousy total image).


Yes, we cull images all the time. They're not all going to be winners,
and while its 'easy' to get rid of technically bad images, the problem
with legacy materials that aren't our own (ie, inherited) is that of those
that are technically acceptable, we don't necessarily know the context
of the individual images to understand if they're important enough to scan.


However, in my experience, that kind of judgment is best done during
the scanning process (given that the scanning process will generally
include an initial pre-scan before the scan proper). It's at that
point when one decides whether to go ahead with an image or to skip
it.


It really depends on just what scanning process is being used. If the
prep is labor intensive, then it makes sense to finish the effort with a
high quality / high resolution scan ... but I was referring more to there
being a less laborious alternative methods.

Doing twenty years' worth of pre-scans in the hope of then selecting
which ones to go back to again in order to do properly is both
inefficient and soul-destroying. You need to take a decision while
your engagement with the particular image is fresh, not months down
the road.


Exactly, and I'm already on my second film scanner that's been grossly
underutilized because my soul's already been crushed - twice - by the amount
of time it eats up to "do it right".

-hh
  #8  
Old February 18th 21, 10:17 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Lens recommendation for dia film reproduction?

On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 13:34:55 -0800 (PST), -hh
wrote:

It really depends on just what scanning process is being used. If the
prep is labor intensive, then it makes sense to finish the effort with a
high quality / high resolution scan ... but I was referring more to there
being a less laborious alternative methods.

Doing twenty years' worth of pre-scans in the hope of then selecting
which ones to go back to again in order to do properly is both
inefficient and soul-destroying. You need to take a decision while
your engagement with the particular image is fresh, not months down
the road.


Exactly, and I'm already on my second film scanner that's been grossly
underutilized because my soul's already been crushed - twice - by the amount
of time it eats up to "do it right".


I think we'd probably both agree that given the amount of work
involved in scanning these old images, one needs to think seriously
about what the objective of the undertaking is.

And to review it in the light of experience as well. Back when I
started digitizing the old family archives of photos and slides, I
initially followed all the online "expert advice" about "ideal"
resolution, etc.

Some months into it, I restarted the whole project because I realized
that the "expert advice" was from people whose motivations for
scanning were not like mine. What may have worked for them was just
crap for me.

I got so tired of reading about things like "what resolution to use
for printing to a certain size", etc -- my motives were to digitize in
order to have the images in digital format, not for doing a handful of
physical printouts. A hell of a lot of the scanning guides never
seemed to deal with the purely archival motivation where big file size
and disk useage are the least of one's concerns.

So this time I did every scan as best I could, in batches, saving the
images in lossless format for later editing.

But also having a quick pre-scan of the negatives/slides in each batch
and being fairly ruthless about elimination, not least for those where
the photographer took multiple shots in order to be sure of getting at
least one good one..

The workflow then being to do one "roll" at a time, skipping the
obvious duds, and doing the rest as best as possible. Scan, file,
edit later. But always, one batch at a time, not thousands of scans
and then thousands of edits. Doing them one "roll" at a time keeps
you fresh and engaged,

Point being, it's never going to be fast and simple and easy. "More
akin to painting than photo snapping", I've heard it said. So you
have to approach the whole thing as a longish project, not so much as
a quick-blast knock off. You have to accept that it's going to be
long and laborious, with not much in the way of fast and easy. It's
the nature of the job.

Given that, do it right first time, and do it once only, is what my
experience has taught me.
  #9  
Old February 18th 21, 10:24 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
geoff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default Lens recommendation for dia film reproduction?

On 18/02/2021 10:34 am, -hh wrote:


Exactly, and I'm already on my second film scanner that's been grossly
underutilized because my soul's already been crushed - twice - by the amount
of time it eats up to "do it right".

-hh


Well I guess 'you get what you pay for', so to speak.

geoff
  #10  
Old February 19th 21, 02:32 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 696
Default Lens recommendation for dia film reproduction?

On 2021-02-17 16:34, -hh wrote:

Exactly, and I'm already on my second film scanner that's been grossly
underutilized because my soul's already been crushed - twice - by the amount
of time it eats up to "do it right".


Two thoughts,

1) If you're scanning images from the past, then the workflow is
important. Pre-scan, settings, scan. Tedious, but it will get you
there. If you capture the full range of exposure over the widest range
of bits, then you have all you need to do colour/tone etc. in Photoslop
or whatever environment.

2) If you're scanning 'current work' and your technical abilities with
shooting film are decent, then the scanning work is far less due to
consistency (same film types used often, proper exposure, etc.).

The crush here is less time for photography and that's mostly digital in
any case...


--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lens recommendation for dia film reproduction? croy[_2_] Digital Photography 4 March 4th 21 12:39 PM
Lens recommendation for dia film reproduction? nospam Digital Photography 22 February 14th 21 06:20 AM
1:1 reproduction ratio? Roy Smith Digital SLR Cameras 3 April 4th 06 12:37 AM
film recommendation for WOCA [email protected] Medium Format Photography Equipment 31 October 29th 05 01:16 AM
Documents reproduction piterengel In The Darkroom 1 April 2nd 04 01:49 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.