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
  #151  
Old April 22nd 17, 01:34 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20,428
Default Film scanners?

In article [email protected],
Savageduck wrote:

http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/20...go-acros-the-d
efinitive-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.


that doesn't mean it *can't* be done. it only means you personally
haven't been able to duplicate it.
  #152  
Old April 22nd 17, 01:42 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,762
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-04-21 23:21:37 +0000, nospam said:

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.


He isn't shooting film. He is shooting digital and leaving the
processing to the camera.
http://tavphotography.com/acros-vs-acros-film-vs-digital/
--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #153  
Old April 22nd 17, 01:54 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20,428
Default Film scanners?

In article [email protected],
Savageduck wrote:


http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/20...-go-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.


He isn't shooting film. He is shooting digital and leaving the
processing to the camera.
http://tavphotography.com/acros-vs-acros-film-vs-digital/


it's still his own limitation.

just because *he* can't do it doesn't mean it's not possible.

all he needs to do is match what's done in the camera and the results
will be identical.
  #154  
Old April 22nd 17, 02:03 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,762
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-04-22 00:34:12 +0000, nospam said:

In article [email protected],
Savageduck wrote:

http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/20...go-acros-the-d
efinitive-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.


that doesn't mean it *can't* be done. it only means you personally
haven't been able to duplicate it.


Let's start with dismissing any assumpions you have regarding my
knowledge and capability when it comes to post processing of digital
image files. You know nothing of my ability and knowledge with that
particular set of skills, or what I am working toward with any of my
captured images. To put the other argument to rest, I am a pure digital
shooter, and I haven't shot film in years. The last time I shot film of
any type was back in 1994, shooting both 35mm and Polaroid for a crime
scene.

I am pretty good at working with the various tools such as Exposure X2,
Tonality Pro2, NIK Silver Efex Pro2, etc. The best of those is Exposure
X2 which gets pretty close, but there is still a subtle difference in
the SOOC JPEG and the rendering from RAW with Exposure X2.

For now if I want an image in Acros (w/or wo r/y/g filter, w/or wo
enhanced grain) It is simpler and quicker to do that in-camera (X-T2)
while shooting RAW+JPEG. Then I still have all my options open for
processing in my normal workflow.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #155  
Old April 22nd 17, 02:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,762
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-04-22 00:54:35 +0000, nospam said:

In article [email protected],
Savageduck wrote:


http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/20...-go-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.


He isn't shooting film. He is shooting digital and leaving the
processing to the camera.
http://tavphotography.com/acros-vs-acros-film-vs-digital/


it's still his own limitation.

just because *he* can't do it doesn't mean it's not possible.

all he needs to do is match what's done in the camera and the results
will be identical.


Yeah. That's all he needs to do.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #156  
Old April 22nd 17, 02:09 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Peter Jason
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Film scanners?

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 10:47:51 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2017-04-16 19:21, Peter Jason wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 08:29:30 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2017-04-15 08:22, 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?

Amidst the other suggestions also think about archival quality scans for
the "best of the best". So a dedicated scanner is the best choice.

Also "pre filter" your film and slides to select those that are worthy
due to content or quality.

Make sure the scanner had ICE (scratch, dust correction) - thought that
won't work on Kodachrome (not sure about B&W).

A lot of Minolta 5400 scanners out there as well on the used market.


I have a "Dimage Elite II"
Is there software to allow it to run on Windows10 ??


I'd expect VueScan can handle it - check their site. That's a very good
scanner, BTW. Resolution is a bit on the low side, but great DR and ICE.


I don't know why I'm keeping it because I've scanned all my old
slides.
  #157  
Old April 22nd 17, 02:49 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20,428
Default Film scanners?

In article [email protected],
Savageduck wrote:

On 2017-04-22 00:34:12 +0000, nospam said:

In article [email protected],
Savageduck wrote:


http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/20...-go-acros-the-
d
efinitive-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.


that doesn't mean it *can't* be done. it only means you personally
haven't been able to duplicate it.


Let's start with dismissing any assumpions you have regarding my
knowledge and capability when it comes to post processing of digital
image files. You know nothing of my ability and knowledge with that
particular set of skills, or what I am working toward with any of my
captured images. To put the other argument to rest, I am a pure digital
shooter, and I haven't shot film in years. The last time I shot film of
any type was back in 1994, shooting both 35mm and Polaroid for a crime
scene.


i'm not making any assumptions about anything about you or anyone else.

I am pretty good at working with the various tools such as Exposure X2,
Tonality Pro2, NIK Silver Efex Pro2, etc. The best of those is Exposure
X2 which gets pretty close, but there is still a subtle difference in
the SOOC JPEG and the rendering from RAW with Exposure X2.


only because you didn't exactly duplicate what the camera does.

if you duplicate exactly what the camera does with a given input,
you'll get the same output.

For now if I want an image in Acros (w/or wo r/y/g filter, w/or wo
enhanced grain) It is simpler and quicker to do that in-camera (X-T2)
while shooting RAW+JPEG. Then I still have all my options open for
processing in my normal workflow.


it might be simpler to do in-camera (mainly because it's already done
for you) but that doesn't mean it's impossible in other ways.
  #158  
Old April 22nd 17, 04:01 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ken Hart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 344
Default Film scanners?

On 04/21/2017 06:45 PM, nospam wrote:
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.


Show me. I'm in southwest IN, near I64 & I69. Bring some of your 20x24
enlargements and we'll put them next to mine.

--
Ken Hart

  #159  
Old April 22nd 17, 04:25 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,762
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-04-22 03:01:44 +0000, Ken Hart said:

On 04/21/2017 06:45 PM, nospam wrote:
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.


Show me. I'm in southwest IN, near I64 & I69. Bring some of your 20x24
enlargements and we'll put them next to mine.


Good luck with that. We have yet to see any evidence that he shoots
anything, digital or film.
....but he knows more than all of us combined.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #160  
Old April 22nd 17, 04:41 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20,428
Default Film scanners?

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:


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.


Show me. I'm in southwest IN, near I64 & I69. Bring some of your 20x24
enlargements and we'll put them next to mine.


completely meaningless comparison.

the proper comparison is to have everything matched except for the
variable you wish to test, which in this case is film/digital.

that means the same photographer shooting the same subject in the same
lighting with the same camera settings using similar equipment (same
format size, same lenses if possible, etc.), one being film and the
other digital.

it does *not* mean different photographers shooting different subjects
under different lighting conditions with different cameras, lenses and
settings.
 




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 01:27 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.