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
  #111  
Old April 21st 17, 02:10 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 602
Default Film scanners?

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 7:05:34 PM UTC-4, nospam wrote:
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.


Case in point, I happened to see yesterday a digital photo that the customer
has requested be sent through the public release process to use it for
marketing.

I'll have to obfuscate the subject until it does get released, but suffice to
day that from a camera technology standpoint, the result was a really nice
image with good colors, good saturation levels, and obviously of high
dynamic range, as the shadows were dark but not too terribly harsh, mids
were excellent and the highlight was a bit overexposed, but in context was
really an excellent job of not being blown out. Once the image is released,
you'll better understand what I'm saying.

The kicker to all of this was that it was an outdoor photo on a "Sunny 16"
day, with zero artificial lighting ... and a shutter speed of 1mSec,

If/when the image gets approved for public release, I'll provide a URL link.



BUT...in any event, while I understand nospam's sentiment of "always better",
this is really a fallacy which once one understands the base condition, not
only is not actually true, but it can never be true.

The base condition is two different systems...here, imaging technologies.
That means that by definition, they respond differently to various stimuli.

And it also means that the definition of "best" is a personal judgement, as
generally derived from varying weighting factors on the different metrics.

Since there must be differences, and since these differences are being
quasi-quantified by opinion-driven metrics, what it really comes down to
is that it always depends on the weighting values being assigned by the
individual human ... which is what we commonly call a personal preference.

TL;DR: "its a personal preference, and always has to be, and will be".


-hh
  #112  
Old April 21st 17, 02:30 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,594
Default Film scanners?

In article , -hh
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.


Case in point, I happened to see yesterday a digital photo that the customer
has requested be sent through the public release process to use it for
marketing.

I'll have to obfuscate the subject until it does get released, but suffice to
day that from a camera technology standpoint, the result was a really nice
image with good colors, good saturation levels, and obviously of high
dynamic range, as the shadows were dark but not too terribly harsh, mids
were excellent and the highlight was a bit overexposed, but in context was
really an excellent job of not being blown out. Once the image is released,
you'll better understand what I'm saying.

The kicker to all of this was that it was an outdoor photo on a "Sunny 16"
day, with zero artificial lighting ... and a shutter speed of 1mSec,

If/when the image gets approved for public release, I'll provide a URL link.


BUT...in any event, while I understand nospam's sentiment of "always better",


i didn't say digital is always better.

i said whatever 'film look' someone might want can be done with
digital, and with less fuss/expense/etc.

there is no 'look' that film can do that digital cannot.

not only that, but one can decide which film look to use *after* the
fact and change it at any time, for any reason.

this is really a fallacy which once one understands the base condition, not
only is not actually true, but it can never be true.

The base condition is two different systems...here, imaging technologies.
That means that by definition, they respond differently to various stimuli.


that does not matter.

what matters is that digital can do anything film can do (and more).

And it also means that the definition of "best" is a personal judgement, as
generally derived from varying weighting factors on the different metrics.


best isn't the issue.

producing the *same* results as film is (or going beyond).

Since there must be differences, and since these differences are being
quasi-quantified by opinion-driven metrics, what it really comes down to
is that it always depends on the weighting values being assigned by the
individual human ... which is what we commonly call a personal preference.

TL;DR: "its a personal preference, and always has to be, and will be".


the *look* is a preference, except a particular look was never the
issue.
  #113  
Old April 21st 17, 03:33 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,386
Default Film scanners?

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 20:41:55 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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.


Bull****.

The original discussion was about film photography vs digital
photography in general. Now here you are writing as though the
discussion was about "two different photos taken by two different
photographers ... etc". Up till now no one was discussing "two
different photos taken by two different photographers ... etc" until
you introduced the topic.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #114  
Old April 21st 17, 03:38 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,386
Default Film scanners?

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 20:41:55 -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?


nope.


So things which have not been discovered are not yet being done?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #115  
Old April 21st 17, 03:49 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.


Bull****.


bull**** right back.

The original discussion was about film photography vs digital
photography in general. Now here you are writing as though the
discussion was about "two different photos taken by two different
photographers ... etc". Up till now no one was discussing "two
different photos taken by two different photographers ... etc" until
you introduced the topic.


nope. read it again. someone *else* brought the comparison.
  #116  
Old April 21st 17, 03:49 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,594
Default Film scanners?

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.


So things which have not been discovered are not yet being done?


what does that have to do with anything???
  #117  
Old April 21st 17, 04:08 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,386
Default Film scanners?

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 22:49:26 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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.


Bull****.


bull**** right back.

The original discussion was about film photography vs digital
photography in general. Now here you are writing as though the
discussion was about "two different photos taken by two different
photographers ... etc". Up till now no one was discussing "two
different photos taken by two different photographers ... etc" until
you introduced the topic.


nope. read it again. someone *else* brought the comparison.


Nope.

Prove me wrong by giving a quote.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #118  
Old April 21st 17, 04:11 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.

Bull****.


bull**** right back.

The original discussion was about film photography vs digital
photography in general. Now here you are writing as though the
discussion was about "two different photos taken by two different
photographers ... etc". Up till now no one was discussing "two
different photos taken by two different photographers ... etc" until
you introduced the topic.


nope. read it again. someone *else* brought the comparison.


Nope.

Prove me wrong by giving a quote.


scroll up.
  #119  
Old April 21st 17, 04:17 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,386
Default Film scanners?

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 22:49:26 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.


So things which have not been discovered are not yet being done?


what does that have to do with anything???


Ah ha! By your equivocation I can tell that you now see the trap
before you.

I will answer for you: "Of course things which have not been
discovered are not being done".

To which I answer "Then if there are things which have not been
discovered and are not being done then there is more to digital
photography than anyone knows how to do so nobody can possibly be
using 'digital to its maximum performance'".
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #120  
Old April 21st 17, 04:27 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,594
Default Film scanners?

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

So things which have not been discovered are not yet being done?


what does that have to do with anything???


Ah ha! By your equivocation I can tell that you now see the trap
before you.


what i see is yet another one of your ridiculous arguments.

I will answer for you: "Of course things which have not been
discovered are not being done".

To which I answer "Then if there are things which have not been
discovered and are not being done then there is more to digital
photography than anyone knows how to do so nobody can possibly be
using 'digital to its maximum performance'".


entirely missing the point.
 




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 03:02 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.