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 |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 16:26:32 -0600, "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. Well of course it's different. But so would two film photos taken of the same subject under the same exact conditions. If one looks *better* than the other to some people, it's merely happenstance, and nothing else. I understand that certain things are fun to some people, and I'm not criticizing anyone who does film. But there are people who keep claiming that film looks better, or that you can achieve looks in film that you can't with digital, and that is the part that makes no sense to me. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 18:38:59 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote: 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. Fair enough, but it's not the process I disagree with, it's the claimed output quality of the process. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Russell D.
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. 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. *you* might not be able to, but others definitely can. Film has a unique look. It is not better or worse than digital. It is just different. whatever 'film look' you want can be done using digital. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: 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. in other words, more expensive and more hassle. 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. for all sorts of reasons. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
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". correct. That means that the limit of digital performance is known. Therefore there is nothing new to be discovered or invented. no it doesn't mean that at all. not even remotely close. 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". it's not only possible, but that's exactly what i claimed. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Tony Cooper
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. (Laughing!) What else *is* there for the non-professional photographer? Unless we are getting paid to take photographs, the only reason we do so is as a form of entertainment and to gain a sense of achievement. you don't speak for everyone. And, is either of those not a legitimate reason to pursue the hobby? When it comes to hobby activities, anything that a person does because they enjoy doing it or gain a sense of achievement from it is legitimate. nobody said otherwise. the point is that no matter what 'film look' one wants from film, that very same look can be done with digital. That last sentence of yours in the penultimate paragraph is a hoot! Pricy chemicals and paper? it's more expensive than for digital, which requires no chemicals (i.e., free) and inexpensive paper that has no special storage requirements. 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. so what? that has nothing to do with film or digital. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Ken Hart
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. 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. whatever you can do in a darkroom can be done with digital, including printing, mounting and framing prints. it's also *much* easier to learn and a whole lot less expensive too, particularly with colour, which in a darkroom can be rather time consuming and not cheap, both for the equipment and for the processing. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Ken Hart
wrote: 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? nope. Or have you been to the shows in Mr Neil's "neck of the woods"? he is attempting to compare two different photos taken by two different photographers of two different subjects under different lighting with different exposures on two different mediums, and then claiming that the only reason the results are different is because one is film and the other is digital. that's completely absurd. there are *far* too many variables to make the comparison even the slightest bit useful. it's also not needed since whatever 'film look' someone might want can be done with digital. simple fact. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Bill W
wrote: 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. +1 |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Bill W
wrote: I understand that certain things are fun to some people, and I'm not criticizing anyone who does film. But there are people who keep claiming that film looks better, or that you can achieve looks in film that you can't with digital, and that is the part that makes no sense to me. yep. shoot all the film you want, but the moment anyone claims it can do things that digital can't is when people will call bull****. |
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 |