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
  #131  
Old April 21st 17, 04:28 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,883
Default Film scanners?

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.

He was referring to *his* experience, and that's a perfectly valid
claim.


a bogus claim cannot be valid.

whatever he can do with film can be done with digital. simple physics.

he is wrong, as are you.
  #132  
Old April 21st 17, 04:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,169
Default Film scanners?

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:52:45 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 16:08:23 -0700, Bill W
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?


In this thread? I'm not sure that anyone has.

I've followed this thread, and nospam has denied
that claim, but he's denying something that hasn't been claimed.


Threads always drift, and it might even be me who caused this part of
it. I'm not going to go back through every post, but I'm sure you
won't deny that at least a couple of posters here have made claims
that film is superior to digital, whether in this particular thread or
not.

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.


Sure, in the comments by one poster in this thread. There have been
several other posters, and several other threads. My comments have
been very general.

nospam had to jump in and say: "bored with digital? there's so much
more it can do versus film." and Russell replied "Why do I need it to
do more?".

nospam, delighted to be able to start yet another argument while
putting-down someone else's preference and insult their ability wrote:
"why limit yourself? if you're satisfied with mediocre, go for it."


In other words, nospam feels that anyone shooting film is only capable
of mediocre output.


I didn't read it that way. And you are ignoring the full context of
the discussion.

It's typical of nospam to do this. He creates dissension where there
is no dissension.

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.
Film is limiting, and that's all anyone is claiming. 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. But if processing is needed or simply wanted for
artistic purposes, which would you rather work with, especially if
it's major work?
  #133  
Old April 21st 17, 05:14 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,883
Default Film scanners?

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.

the digital photo can be downgraded to look like the film photo if
that's the look someone wants, but the film photo can't ever be
improved to match the output of the digital slr. not possible.

similarly, an audio cd can be downgraded to sound like a vinyl record,
but it's not possible for a record, no matter how good it is, to be as
good as digital audio. not possible.

But if processing is needed or simply wanted for
artistic purposes, which would you rather work with, especially if
it's major work?


obviously, digital is easier and can do more, but even without any
processing, film can't match what digital can do.
  #134  
Old April 21st 17, 05:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,403
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-04-21 15:21:03 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:13:49 -0400, 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 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. 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.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zqyfo6e1wozaotc/screenshot_38.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z3ppz9n7r0dk749/screenshot_35b.jpg

....but that is my experience. ;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #135  
Old April 21st 17, 05:34 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,883
Default Film scanners?

In article [email protected],
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.
  #136  
Old April 21st 17, 06:32 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,883
Default Film scanners?

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Claiming superiority of a technology, and I fully agree. But there are
film shooters who claim superiority of the final output using film.
Film is limiting, and that's all anyone is claiming. 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. But if processing is needed or simply wanted for
artistic purposes, which would you rather work with, especially if
it's major work?


I don't recall any specific references, but most of the film users
that have posted here are talking about *their* experience and
opinion. If they feel that they can achieve better results with film,
I accept that.


it shows that they don't know how to get good results out of digital.

they're blaming the medium for their own lack of skill and worse, they
refuse to learn how by insisting that film is better.

I would rather work with digital, but that's my own opinion. What I
don't agree with are the attacks on film users who are doing what they
like to do. I don't even care if they make claims about the
superiority of film. I understand that to be their opinion based on
their own capabilities.


people can use whatever they want.

the problem is when people make factually false claims, such as film
being better than digital.

To label their work "mediocre" is an undeserved insult.


that's not what was said

I'm not convinced that being "limited" is such a bad thing. If the
film shooter goes out with one roll of film, he gets 36 chances to get
a well-composed, well-exposed, good photograph. The digital shooter
can shoot hundreds of exposures on the same outing with one card, and
(if shooting RAW) an almost unlimited ability to improve and correct
what was not done right in the field.


nothing about digital prevents someone from only shooting 36 photos per
card or whatever limit *they* decide is appropriate.

if someone wants to take hours to compose a shot and shoot only one
photo, they can do that too.

Digital has allowed us to get sloppy. Not that we all are, but the
medium allows it. The film shooter tends to be more disciplined and
take more care with each shot.


myth.

I'm not going to go back to film, but I do make an effort to bring the
same discipline and care into my shots that I did when shooting film.
It might improve the results if each of us went out with our digital
cameras and restricted the day's shooting to 36 frames and printed out
each image only as the camera captured it. No peeking at the image
taken or the histogram in the camera. Results visible only after
uploading. Just as an exercise, you understand.


that won't help people learn.

Digital is like allowing a batter to have an unlimited number of
strikes. Sooner or later, he'll hit the ball.


not even close to a good analogy.

digital is like allowing a batter to keep hitting the ball like they
always have (or strike out if they were a klutz), without ever getting
tired.
  #137  
Old April 21st 17, 06:32 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,883
Default Film scanners?

In article , Tony Cooper
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 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.


True, that. But is that what Russell wants to do? Shoot and process
in such a way that he has unlimited revision choices, or shoot and
process in such a way that he has to do it right the first time?


he's claiming digital can't duplicate the look. that's false.

The point, in this case, is not what *can* be done, but Russell *wants
to do*. I'm sure Russell knows the options available in digital, but
he chooses to go a different way because "It's fun".


he clearly doesn't know, or he wouldn't make false claims.

Why on earth would anyone object to this? Or label his choice as the
"mediocre" way to go?


because what he wrote is factually false.
  #138  
Old April 21st 17, 06:37 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,403
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-04-21 17:07:21 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:16:03 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-21 15:21:03 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:13:49 -0400, 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 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.


True, that. But is that what Russell wants to do?


I wouldn't know. He hasn't told us if he has even thought of that approach.

Shoot and process
in such a way that he has unlimited revision choices, or shoot and
process in such a way that he has to do it right the first time?


Shooting digital doesn't stop you from getting things "right the first
time", and locking into those results without any post processing.
Especially if you shoot JPEG only, and use a camera which gives you
very good SOOC options with in-camera film emulation choices. here I am
thinking selfishly of my X-T2.
http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/2017/3/19/forget-raw-and-go-acros-the-definitive-review

The

point, in this case, is not what *can* be done, but Russell *wants
to do*. I'm sure Russell knows the options available in digital, but
he chooses to go a different way because "It's fun".


It is always about want each of us *wants to do*, and I am sure that it
is fun for him. However, I am not so sure that he does know all the
digital options available to him, or if he even cares that there are
such options.

Why on earth would anyone object to this?


Only one person I can think off.

Or label his choice as the
"mediocre" way to go?


He who labels without thinking things through, or caring about any
opinions than his.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #139  
Old April 21st 17, 06:44 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,883
Default Film scanners?

In article [email protected],
Savageduck wrote:


Shoot and process
in such a way that he has unlimited revision choices, or shoot and
process in such a way that he has to do it right the first time?


Shooting digital doesn't stop you from getting things "right the first
time", and locking into those results without any post processing.
Especially if you shoot JPEG only, and use a camera which gives you
very good SOOC options with in-camera film emulation choices.


correct.



point, in this case, is not what *can* be done, but Russell *wants
to do*. I'm sure Russell knows the options available in digital, but
he chooses to go a different way because "It's fun".


It is always about want each of us *wants to do*, and I am sure that it
is fun for him. However, I am not so sure that he does know all the
digital options available to him, or if he even cares that there are
such options.


he clearly does not know about all of the digital options nor how to
best use them, and that's why his claim that the 'film look' cannot be
duplicated is *false*.
  #140  
Old April 21st 17, 07:37 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,403
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-04-21 17:37:10 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2017-04-21 17:07:21 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:16:03 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-21 15:21:03 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:13:49 -0400, 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 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.


True, that. But is that what Russell wants to do?


I wouldn't know. He hasn't told us if he has even thought of that approach.

Shoot and process
in such a way that he has unlimited revision choices, or shoot and
process in such a way that he has to do it right the first time?


Shooting digital doesn't stop you from getting things "right the first
time", and locking into those results without any post processing.
Especially if you shoot JPEG only, and use a camera which gives you
very good SOOC options with in-camera film emulation choices. here I am
thinking selfishly of my X-T2.
http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/2017/3/19/forget-raw-and-go-acros-the-definitive-review


The
point,

in this case, is not what *can* be done, but Russell *wants
to do*. I'm sure Russell knows the options available in digital, but
he chooses to go a different way because "It's fun".


It is always about want each of us *wants to do*, and I am sure that it
is fun for him. However, I am not so sure that he does know all the
digital options available to him, or if he even cares that there are
such options.

Why on earth would anyone object to this?


Only one person I can think off.

Or label his choice as the
"mediocre" way to go?


He who labels without thinking things through, or caring about any
opinions than his.


I guess along the way this was missed.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/features/great-film-renaissance-2017
--


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 08:16 PM.


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.