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 |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 04/21/2017 09:28 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper wrote: 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. Who made that claim? I've followed this thread, and nospam has denied that claim, but he's denying something that hasn't been claimed. it was claimed. This is what nospam does to a thread to create an argument where there should not be an argument. The thread started on the subject of scanners. Then, Russell D. posted: "Exactly what I was thinking when I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored with digital and started shooting film again. Glad I didn't sell it." No claim that film is superior. No claim that he can do something with film that can't be done with digital. Just a simple statement that he started shooting film again. in another post, he claimed film can do things digital cannot. that is a completely bogus claim. once again, you are twisting things. Liar. Talk abut twisting things, you were saying that claims were made about film being superior long before Russell made any comment about film vs digital in this thread. What Russell posted late in the thread was: "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." he is wrong. it *can* be duplicated. OK, show me digitally duplicated TriX semi-stand developed in 1:100 Rodinal. I have yet to even see a digital "Kodachrome" photo that looked like Kodachrome. |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 04/21/2017 10:34 AM, nospam wrote:
In article 2017042109160380739-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: What Russell posted late in the thread was: "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." He was referring to *his* experience, and that's a perfectly valid claim. However, each of those rolls of Tri-X is limited to its singular and unique developing process, whereas a single digital exposure can be processed with as many different film emulations you care to experiment with, without loosing the experimental experience. and look exactly like tri-x, if that's the goal. With software such as Exposure X2 you have the option with B&W emulations to use different developer types, including Rodinal at different concentrations to achieve different grain concentration and quality. The combinations are endless, and much less toxic than using a wet darkroom. yep although you won't get the coffee aroma that you would when developing in coffee. you can, of course, brew a fresh pot to drink. Sadly, I don't like the smell of coffee. |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 04/21/2017 10:14 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Bill W wrote: It's not a film shooter that has claimed superiority. It's the person who says that film shooters can only produce mediocre results that is claiming superiority. Claiming superiority of a technology, and I fully agree. But there are film shooters who claim superiority of the final output using film. anyone claiming that is delusional, just like the audiophools who claim that vinyl sounds better than cds. they live in a fantasyland. Film is limiting, and that's all anyone is claiming. yep, and it is. simple physics. If you take two identical photos under perfect conditions, one with top 35 mm film, and the other with a good FF DSLR, the prints should be of equal quality before any processing is done. I don't think anyone would argue with that. i would. if the same photographer takes two photos of the same subject, same lighting, same lens, same exposure, etc., one with a film camera and one with an full frame digital slr, the digital camera will always be able to produce a higher quality result. Define "quality." |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Russell D.
wrote: "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." he is wrong. it *can* be duplicated. OK, show me digitally duplicated TriX semi-stand developed in 1:100 Rodinal. I have yet to even see a digital "Kodachrome" photo that looked like Kodachrome. just because you personally haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 2017-05-11 17:02:25 +0000, "Russell D." said:
On 04/21/2017 09:28 AM, nospam wrote: In article , Tony Cooper wrote: 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. Who made that claim? I've followed this thread, and nospam has denied that claim, but he's denying something that hasn't been claimed. it was claimed. This is what nospam does to a thread to create an argument where there should not be an argument. The thread started on the subject of scanners. Then, Russell D. posted: "Exactly what I was thinking when I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored with digital and started shooting film again. Glad I didn't sell it." No claim that film is superior. No claim that he can do something with film that can't be done with digital. Just a simple statement that he started shooting film again. in another post, he claimed film can do things digital cannot. that is a completely bogus claim. once again, you are twisting things. Liar. Talk abut twisting things, you were saying that claims were made about film being superior long before Russell made any comment about film vs digital in this thread. What Russell posted late in the thread was: "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." he is wrong. it *can* be duplicated. OK, show me digitally duplicated TriX semi-stand developed in 1:100 Rodinal. This is an ExposureX2 Tri-X simulation with a Rodinal developer treatment: https://www.dropbox.com/s/mgw8teb17zmzvlz/DSF4472-E.jpg I have yet to even see a digital "Kodachrome" photo that looked like Kodachrome. Then the question should be: which specific Kodachrome vintage, 1936, 1954, 1963, et seq? They each have a very different tone. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 04/21/2017 10:14 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Bill W wrote: It's not a film shooter that has claimed superiority. It's the person who says that film shooters can only produce mediocre results that is claiming superiority. Claiming superiority of a technology, and I fully agree. But there are film shooters who claim superiority of the final output using film. anyone claiming that is delusional, just like the audiophools who claim that vinyl sounds better than cds. they live in a fantasyland. Film is limiting, and that's all anyone is claiming. yep, and it is. simple physics. If you take two identical photos under perfect conditions, one with top 35 mm film, and the other with a good FF DSLR, the prints should be of equal quality before any processing is done. I don't think anyone would argue with that. i would. if the same photographer takes two photos of the same subject, same lighting, same lens, same exposure, etc., one with a film camera and one with an full frame digital slr, the digital camera will always be able to produce a higher quality result. Let me rephrase that: What do YOU mean by quality? |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 05/11/2017 11:13 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Russell D. wrote: "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." he is wrong. it *can* be duplicated. OK, show me digitally duplicated TriX semi-stand developed in 1:100 Rodinal. I have yet to even see a digital "Kodachrome" photo that looked like Kodachrome. just because you personally haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. True. You are the one making the claim. Show me an example. It does not need to be yours. Russell |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 05/11/2017 11:29 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-05-11 17:02:25 +0000, "Russell D." said: On 04/21/2017 09:28 AM, nospam wrote: In article , Tony Cooper wrote: 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. Who made that claim? I've followed this thread, and nospam has denied that claim, but he's denying something that hasn't been claimed. it was claimed. This is what nospam does to a thread to create an argument where there should not be an argument. The thread started on the subject of scanners. Then, Russell D. posted: "Exactly what I was thinking when I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored with digital and started shooting film again. Glad I didn't sell it." No claim that film is superior. No claim that he can do something with film that can't be done with digital. Just a simple statement that he started shooting film again. in another post, he claimed film can do things digital cannot. that is a completely bogus claim. once again, you are twisting things. Liar. Talk abut twisting things, you were saying that claims were made about film being superior long before Russell made any comment about film vs digital in this thread. What Russell posted late in the thread was: "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." he is wrong. it *can* be duplicated. OK, show me digitally duplicated TriX semi-stand developed in 1:100 Rodinal. This is an ExposureX2 Tri-X simulation with a Rodinal developer treatment: https://www.dropbox.com/s/mgw8teb17zmzvlz/DSF4472-E.jpg This example pretty much illustrates my point. That might me Tri-X in Rodinal at 78 degrees instead of 68 degrees. This is more typical: https://flic.kr/p/SiATq9 I have yet to even see a digital "Kodachrome" photo that looked like Kodachrome. Then the question should be: which specific Kodachrome vintage, 1936, 1954, 1963, et seq? They each have a very different tone. Exactly. |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 2017-05-11 21:25:37 +0000, "Russell D." said:
On 05/11/2017 11:29 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-05-11 17:02:25 +0000, "Russell D." said: On 04/21/2017 09:28 AM, nospam wrote: In article , Tony Cooper wrote: 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. Who made that claim? I've followed this thread, and nospam has denied that claim, but he's denying something that hasn't been claimed. it was claimed. This is what nospam does to a thread to create an argument where there should not be an argument. The thread started on the subject of scanners. Then, Russell D. posted: "Exactly what I was thinking when I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored with digital and started shooting film again. Glad I didn't sell it." No claim that film is superior. No claim that he can do something with film that can't be done with digital. Just a simple statement that he started shooting film again. in another post, he claimed film can do things digital cannot. that is a completely bogus claim. once again, you are twisting things. Liar. Talk abut twisting things, you were saying that claims were made about film being superior long before Russell made any comment about film vs digital in this thread. What Russell posted late in the thread was: "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." he is wrong. it *can* be duplicated. OK, show me digitally duplicated TriX semi-stand developed in 1:100 Rodinal. This is an ExposureX2 Tri-X simulation with a Rodinal developer treatment: https://www.dropbox.com/s/mgw8teb17zmzvlz/DSF4472-E.jpg This example pretty much illustrates my point. That might me Tri-X in Rodinal at 78 degrees instead of 68 degrees. This is more typical: https://flic.kr/p/SiATq9 Well, we are talking Tri-X and the variations to that film which can start in the camera, and continue with the variations regarding developer choice, time, and temps. Then comes printing. I have all sorts of treatments: https://www.dropbox.com/s/k1hmoi6stsk7tb3/DSF1370-E2.jpg https://www.dropbox.com/s/i8jlkoeavh7ifi4/DSF1371-E2.jpg I have yet to even see a digital "Kodachrome" photo that looked like Kodachrome. Then the question should be: which specific Kodachrome vintage, 1936, 1954, 1963, et seq? They each have a very different tone. Exactly. Yup! That gives you comments where nobody can agree that a particular image appears to be the Kodachrome that they know and love. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Russell D.
wrote: If you take two identical photos under perfect conditions, one with top 35 mm film, and the other with a good FF DSLR, the prints should be of equal quality before any processing is done. I don't think anyone would argue with that. i would. if the same photographer takes two photos of the same subject, same lighting, same lens, same exposure, etc., one with a film camera and one with an full frame digital slr, the digital camera will always be able to produce a higher quality result. Let me rephrase that: What do YOU mean by quality? digital surpasses film in every metric, including resolution, dynamic range and colour accuracy. no matter what film can do, digital can exceed it or match the 'film look'. |
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 |