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

Film scanners?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old April 21st 17, 12:01 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,173
Default 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  
Old April 21st 17, 12:03 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,173
Default 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  
Old April 21st 17, 12:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,881
Default 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  
Old April 21st 17, 12:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,881
Default 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  
Old April 21st 17, 12:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,881
Default 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  
Old April 21st 17, 12:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,881
Default 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  
Old April 21st 17, 12:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,881
Default 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  
Old April 21st 17, 12:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,881
Default 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  
Old April 21st 17, 12:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,881
Default 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  
Old April 21st 17, 12:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,881
Default 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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.