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
  #141  
Old April 21st 17, 08:07 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,883
Default Film scanners?

In article [email protected],
Savageduck wrote:


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


and for good reason, because it's complete utter rubbish.

this bit in particular shows just how ignorant he is:
Shooting film is attractive for many reasons: it provides a direct
connection to the great images of the past; it requires more hands-on
involvement and forethought than digital photography; it produces a
physical end product (a negative, a print, a transparency) rather
than an image file stored on a hard drive or a memory card; and above
all, film images have character, that distinctive look and feel that
can be simulated, but never quite duplicated, using digital
film-emulation apps.

above all, 'that distinctive look' can be *precisely* duplicated with
digital, a mathematically provable fact.

*he* might not be able to get digital to look the same, but that's his
own lack of skill, not that of the medium.

as for the rest, film has no more of a direct connection than digital,
nothing prevents hands-on, involvement or forethought either (film
requiring that is actually a defect, not a feature) and a physical
negative, print or slide can be created from a digital original, one
which is *higher* quality than had it been created in the camera.

he also neglects to mention that physical copies take up physical space
and degrade the moment they're created. he also neglects to mention
that many hundreds of thousands of photos can be stored in less space
than a few dozen physical prints would take up, without needing special
storage conditions, and any of which can be instantly retrieved from a
simple query (e.g., 'photos of laura' or 'photos of paris in winter').
  #142  
Old April 21st 17, 10:03 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Film scanners?

On Saturday, April 15, 2017 at 8:23:00 AM UTC-4, newshound wrote:
I realise that this question doesn't have a simple answer, but it is
time I started scanning some of my old 35 mm slides and negatives
(mostly b&w).

I would really welcome some comments or experience on hardware in the
"keen amateur" price bracket.

I know I can also "farm it out" but I'm interested in doing some myself
at least to get a feel for what results to inspect. Is there anything
which stands out towards the budget end in terms of value for money or
ease of use?

Thanks in advance

Steve


Regarding the "crappy" projector lenses, that is why I used a Nikon projector with a Nikon projector lens, and the best quality screen that I could get.

Mort Linder
  #143  
Old April 21st 17, 11:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ken Hart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 313
Default Film scanners?

On 04/20/2017 07:03 PM, Bill W wrote:
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.


I have prints (typically 20"x24") hanging that I've shoot on either
35mm, 6x6, or 645 and optically printed that I will stack up against an
equivalent digital print- not a screen image, but an actual
print-on-paper, framed and hanging on the wall.

--
Ken Hart

  #144  
Old April 21st 17, 11:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,883
Default Film scanners?

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


I guess along the way this was missed.


https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora...at-film-renais

sance-2017


nospam will respond and trash the piece, of course. That's what he
does.


i trash stuff when it deserves to be trashed. the above article is pure
trash.

I do wonder if he thinks that he has informed, educated, or convinced
anyone with his continued rants. Basically, he's preaching to the
choir. I don't think anyone here thinks that film is inherently
superior to digital,


you think wrong. several people have stated exactly that and you even
quoted one of them.

but there might be some who think that their
results using film are superior to what *they* can do with digital.


if so, that would be *their* limitation, not that of digital.

what's worse is they refuse to learn how.

That's a subjective opinion and a perfectly valid self-assessment.


it's not subjective in the least.

anything that can be done with film can be done with digital, a
provable fact.

I don't expect there will be a stampede of people abandoning film
cameras


have you been living in a cave for the last two decades?? there already
has been such a stampede.

film sales are a tiny fraction of what they once were. kodak went
bankrupt and rochester, new york is hurting because of it. polaroid no
longer exists other than a name to be licensed, mostly for crappy
electronics. camera stores are mostly gone and with rare exception,
film cameras aren't being made anymore.

because the little tinpot wannabe dictator nospam has told


insults are all you know.

them they can only expect mediocre results.


and that's exactly why there was a stampede.

people quickly realized that digital produces better results with less
fuss, particularly pros where maximum quality is very important.

like any change, there are always a few stubborn holdouts who refuse to
accept reality, some of whom have a vested interest in keeping the
status quo, making their claims rather biased.
  #145  
Old April 21st 17, 11:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,883
Default Film scanners?

In article , 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.


I have prints (typically 20"x24") hanging that I've shoot on either
35mm, 6x6, or 645 and optically printed


all of which could be done with a digital camera, with noticeably
better results.

that I will stack up against an
equivalent digital print- not a screen image, but an actual
print-on-paper, framed and hanging on the wall.


you will lose.
  #146  
Old April 21st 17, 11:53 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,460
Default Film scanners?

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

scroll up.


Typical cop out.


it ain't me who is copping out.

Give me a quote.


scroll up. it's still there.


  #147  
Old April 22nd 17, 12:09 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,460
Default Film scanners?

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:37:32 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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 article contains the statement that:

"The fact that no external RAW converter can achieve a similar
analogue film-like look ... ".

I must agree with what nospam will probably say. If it can be done in
the camera it clearly can be done in an external computer. The fact
that the author of that article doesn't know how is irrelevant.

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,

Eric Stevens
  #148  
Old April 22nd 17, 12:15 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,460
Default Film scanners?

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:13:50 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.


I think this will do for the end of the argument.


good

Typical.


for you, yes.


  #149  
Old April 22nd 17, 12:21 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,883
Default Film scanners?

In article , Eric Stevens
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. here I am
thinking selfishly of my X-T2.

http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/20...o-acros-the-de
finitive-review


The article contains the statement that:

"The fact that no external RAW converter can achieve a similar
analogue film-like look ... ".

I must agree with what nospam will probably say. If it can be done in
the camera it clearly can be done in an external computer. The fact
that the author of that article doesn't know how is irrelevant.


as i said elsewhere, it's his own limitation, not that of digital.
  #150  
Old April 22nd 17, 01:29 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,403
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-04-21 23:09:27 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:37:32 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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

article contains the statement that:

"The fact that no external RAW converter can achieve a similar
analogue film-like look ... ".

I must agree with what nospam will probably say. If it can be done in
the camera it clearly can be done in an external computer. The fact
that the author of that article doesn't know how is irrelevant.


What the author is saying mirrors my experience, that currently none of
the available software, including the best of all those I have which
provide film emulation; Exposure X2, Tonality Pro, On1 Photo RAW 2017,
NIK Silver Efex Pro2, and others, can quite match what Fujifilm does
in-camera. I have made side-by-side comparisons and the Fujifilm
in-camera process is quite remarkable and unmatched. However, there are
times I want something other than the choices Fujifilm offers, then I
turn to Exposure X2.

Many shooters with the Fujifilm X-Trans III sensor cameras such as the
X-Pro2, X-T2, X-100F, & X-T20 have chosen to shoot JPEG only and use
SOOC images by-passing an external computer.

Personally I am still of the RAW+JPEG school with my
Lightroom+Photoshop workflow, but I am open to all sorts of change, and
so far I have been impressed with the quality of unprocessed JPEGs SOOC
from both my X-E2 and my X-T2. I have little problem shareing or
otherwise using SOOC Fujifilm X-Trans images.

What nospam says is all up to him, but I have my own evidence.


--
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 08:15 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.