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
  #101  
Old April 21st 17, 12:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,594
Default Film scanners?

In article , Bill W
wrote:


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.


same here.

digital can do everything film can do and a whole lot more.
  #102  
Old April 21st 17, 12:08 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,065
Default Film scanners?

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:16:50 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:42:58 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:08:41 -0600, "Russell D."
wrote:

On 04/18/2017 11:45 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:06:55 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:48:12 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:01:41 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:22:15 -0600, "Russell D."
wrote:

On 04/18/2017 05:42 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Russell D.
wrote:

buy a used nikon coolscan, scan all of your film, then sell it when
you're done, as you won't be needing it anymore.

Exactly what I was thinking when I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored
with digital and started shooting film again.

bored with digital? there's so much more it can do versus film.

Why do I need it to do more?

why limit yourself?

I'm not.

if you're satisfied with mediocre, go for it.

Mediocre is relative.

how can anyone be bored with it?

Pretty easily. And many do.

not that many and fewer every day.

False. Film sales are increasing.

Try it you'll like it. Oh, wait your not a photographer, just a talker.

Russell

It's not like nospam needs my help, but your criticism is unfair.
There are two sides to photography - technical and artistic. Nospam
has never joined in any threads regarding any photos that anyone has
posted. He has never criticized any photo from an artistic viewpoint -
it's just not what he does here. He clearly has vast technical
knowledge on many photography related subjects, and the technical side
is all he *ever* posts on. And that says absolutely nothing about his
photographic skills. He could be a star, and he might suck. Who knows,
and who cares? Any criticism of his technical comments are certainly
understandable, right or wrong, but commenting on his skills as a
photographer makes no sense at all.

While your point is somewhat valid, but nospam commenting on artistic
choice makes no sense. And, shooting film is an artistic choice.

For him to say that capturing on film is "mediocre" is like telling an
artist who paints with water colors that the choice of water colors
will yield a mediocre result compared to using oil. Or that an
charcoal sketch is a mediocre painting compared to trompe l'oeil.

I disagree. The way I see it, his comments on film vs digital are
strictly technical. To me he is saying that there is *nothing* you can
do with film that you cannot do with digital, so there is no artistic
choice to be make in the first place.

No, the difference is not technical. From an artistic point of view,
how you get there is part of the artistic effort. The film experience
goes from taking the photograph, to processing the negative, to making
prints. That whole experience is what the film photographer enjoys.

In digital, you take the photograph, process the files, and make the
print. Similar steps, but not the steps that the film enthusiasts
enjoys. I enjoy the digital steps, but I recognize that not everyone
feels the same way.

If you don't understand - as nospam doesn't - the enjoyment of going
through the film steps, and think only of the result, you'll never
understand why the film photographer does what he does.

Any non-professional who feels that the only thing that matters in
photography is the result is - in my opinion - really missing
something in this wonderful hobby.


Excellent points, Tony. That last paragraph is spot on.

Russell

Tony gets it.


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.


Only? Not true. Documenting family memories, or rare, unexpected
events are just a couple of other reasons.

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.


No one can argue with that, and no one is.

That last sentence of yours in the penultimate paragraph is a hoot!
Pricy chemicals and paper?

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.


Like I mentioned in another post, I don't have to buy a new SD card
every 36 photos, and new processing software for every batch of
photos.

There's not a non-professional here who can justify the time and
expense of photography - film or digital - if you consider what
doesn't need to be done to not be a "legitimate" expenditure of money
or time.


Agreed.

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.

A hobby is not supposed to be the most efficient way to get something
done. It's supposed to be the most enjoyable way to get it done. Only
a soulless cretin would say "i also wasn't talking about some fuzzy
unquantifiable 'experience'" when it is the experience that is what a
hobby is all about.


Again, no argument.
  #103  
Old April 21st 17, 01:04 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,176
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-04-20 21:16:50 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:42:58 -0700, Bill W
wrote:


Snip

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.


Yup!

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.


I never for one minute had a thought of using photography for anything
other than a hobby.

That last sentence of yours in the penultimate paragraph is a hoot!
Pricy chemicals and paper?


So much more than chemicals and paper (though I still buy paper and
ink). There are tanks, clips, thermometers, trays, enlarger, I even had
a print dryer-glazer. Then there is plumbing and the pretense of
responsible chemical disposal.
All of my darkroom equipment was sold not long after I left college and
I went into something of a photography hiatus for many years with just
the occasional roll of 35mm run through either my Pentax or my Yashica,
and processed and printed by various labs.

....and then came digital and my enthusiasm was revived. Once I retired
I had the time to indulge myself once again.

Pretty much everyone reading this has several thousand dollars
invested in digital camera kit and software.


Yup!
Check with PeterN, Eric, Jonas, Davoud (David), Alan Browne, and the
two of us. I don't think there is a single pro photographer among us.

And, some like the Duck,
are contemplating spending a couple of thou more upgrading and adding
to what they already have.


Just spent $1599 on my new camera, and I will probably buy another lens
or three. What I have found with the Fujifilm X-series cameras, has
been a return to thinking about photography as if I were shooting film,
which is something I never experienced with any of my Nikons, and I am
enjoying myself.

And, he's burning a lot of gas and time
driving out to take snapshots of a field of wildflowers.


Why not? It was just an hour drive each way, and I had nothing else to do.
Ain't retirement fun?

There's not a non-professional here who can justify the time and
expense of photography - film or digital - if you consider what
doesn't need to be done to not be a "legitimate" expenditure of money
or time.


Not one cent of what I have spent on photography, film & digital, over
50+ years as a hobbyist photographer can be explained away rationally.

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?


I have known folks who did some of the most obscure and pointless (and
sometimes expensive) things as hobbies.

A hobby is not supposed to be the most efficient way to get something
done. It's supposed to be the most enjoyable way to get it done. Only
a soulless cretin would say "i also wasn't talking about some fuzzy
unquantifiable 'experience'" when it is the experience that is what a
hobby is all about.


Yup!


--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #104  
Old April 21st 17, 01:07 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,176
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-04-20 21:57:55 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:16:50 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

--- snip ---

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.


Exactly!

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.


Digital revived my enthusiasm as a hobbyist photographer, and led me to
spend thousands of $$$.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #105  
Old April 21st 17, 01:21 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,386
Default Film scanners?

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 19:05:29 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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.


You are changing the subject. Typical.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #106  
Old April 21st 17, 01:24 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,386
Default Film scanners?

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 19:05:28 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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.


Whereas you do?

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.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #107  
Old April 21st 17, 01:32 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,386
Default Film scanners?

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 19:05:28 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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.


So you are claiming that there are people doing things which have not
yet been discovered?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #108  
Old April 21st 17, 01:41 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,594
Default Film scanners?

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.


You are changing the subject. Typical.


nothing was changed. not a single thing.
  #109  
Old April 21st 17, 01:41 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,594
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.


So you are claiming that there are people doing things which have not
yet been discovered?


nope.
  #110  
Old April 21st 17, 01:42 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,176
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-04-20 23:08:23 +0000, Bill W said:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:16:50 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:42:58 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

Snip


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.


Only? Not true. Documenting family memories, or rare, unexpected
events are just a couple of other reasons.


There is so much more with whatever trip a brainstorm takes you.

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.


No one can argue with that, and no one is.


Yup!

That last sentence of yours in the penultimate paragraph is a hoot!
Pricy chemicals and paper?

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.


Like I mentioned in another post, I don't have to buy a new SD card
every 36 photos, and new processing software for every batch of
photos.

There's not a non-professional here who can justify the time and
expense of photography - film or digital - if you consider what
doesn't need to be done to not be a "legitimate" expenditure of money
or time.


Agreed.

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.


For the last few years I have been using emulation software with my
Photoshop and Lightroom workflow, because I wanted to achieve something
more than a clean, sharp (are you listening Peter?) clinical digital
image. I got much of what I was seeking with the now free NIK Color
Efex Pro4, Analog Efex Pro2, and Silver Efex Pro2. I have found that
the best of this type of software is Alien Skin ExposureX2. It is to me
very much the same as dabbling in the darkroom in days of yore. All
without the romance and chemical smell of the wet darkroom. The results
are indistinguishable from what I produced with Tri-X 50 years ago.

My latest adventure with digital photographic "film" nostalgia has been
with the Fujifilm in-camera film emulations, especially their B&W Acros
emulation. The bottom line is, I am enjoying myself. I am not alone in
enjoying the Fujifilm in-camera and SOOC emulations. Each of these
links are to related articles in the same blog:
http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/2017/1/29/fuji-acros-amazing-jpegs-with-film-like-grain
http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/2017/3/19/forget-raw-and-go-acros-the-definitive-review
http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/2017/4/2/three-intuitive-settings-that-will-make-your-fuji-xt2-disappear

A

hobby is not supposed to be the most efficient way to get something
done. It's supposed to be the most enjoyable way to get it done. Only
a soulless cretin would say "i also wasn't talking about some fuzzy
unquantifiable 'experience'" when it is the experience that is what a
hobby is all about.


Again, no argument.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

 




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 03:01 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.