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
  #171  
Old April 23rd 17, 04:55 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,235
Default Film scanners?

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 20:38:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-23 02:43:30 +0000, Bill W said:

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 08:26:21 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-22 08:21:29 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

I wouldn't argue with any of that but this guy is saying that it must
be done in the camera or not at all.

Agreed.
That is a silly position to take, particularly since most shooters are
looking for more than SOOC Acros simulations. I am.

My point is that if the processor in the camera can do it then a
processor outside the camera can do it
equally well.

One would think that, and I have been trying to do that ever since the
Fuji PR machine hyped the Acros in-camera simulation with the release
of the X-Pro2, with the X-Trans III sensor and the new X-Processor Pro.
My X-E2 does not have said processor, so I was only able to work with
the in-camera Acros simulation once I got my X-T2. Up until then I got
some pretty good results using Exposure X2, Tonality Pro, and NIK
Silver Efex Pro.

The Camera profiles in LR are camera specific, so Acros was not
available for the X-E2 in LR. It is for the X-T2, so I have only been
able to make that comparison over the last 10 days. The best of the
third party emulations has been Exposure X2. However, when compared
with the X-T2 SOOC rendering, there is a palpable difference which I
have not been able to match, and even though I say so myself, I am not
totally incapable when it comes to working with the software available
to me. While the differences are subtle, I have yet to manage a tweak
in any software to match the X-T2 SOOC in-camera Acros.

I am sure that nospam, and perhaps even you could show me just how to
do it, but I don't see you buying an X-series camera anytime soon, and
I don't anticipate nospam showing us any results.

All it needs is the right programming.

...and that might well be where the difference lies since Fujifilm is
using a proprietary processor and proprietary algorithm. It is one of
their films after all.


Yes, but... I'm not arguing about this, but does the in camera
emulation give you the results you like more than the others, or is it
really more accurate? If you believe it's more accurate, what is there
left to base that on? I have to assume you are not doing side by side
comparisons, and are working from memory. Even if you have more or
less recent film prints, they would be samples, and not the final word
on what those film prints all looked like.


Actually I can make side-by-side comparisons for the various digital
images. It has nothing to do with accuracy, and this for me is only
with regard to the in-camera Acros simulation. As far as comparing with
prints from actual Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros film goes, I have never
used it. Back in B&W film days I was a Tri-X shooter.

When it comes to making the digital comparison there is a quality and
character to the SOOC image in tone and grain (and you can set three
levels of grain which is reactive to the camera's exposure settings) a
quality which is not present in the third party simulations. As I have
said, I can get pretty close with Exposure X2, but it is not quite
there.

I can understand that logic and common sense says that if Acros can be
simulated by one processor, it should be a simple matter to replicate
that with third party software on an external computer. I own and use
most of the software capable of the task, and quiite simply I have not
been able to match the job done in-camera.

I would eventually like somebody in this group, other than the usual
opinionators who don't use the Fujifilm cameras, or appropriate
software, to see for themselves, and report back, to be able to voice
their opinion. I am probably flogging a dead horse here since I don't
believe there is another owner of an X-Pro2, X-T2, X-T20, or X100F in
this group yet.


In that case, I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding around
this. The way I was reading your comments, you seemed to be saying
that only the in camera processing is an accurate emulation, but now I
believe you are saying that none of the 3d party software can match
the camera, regardless of whether the camera's emulation is accurate
or not. Now that I can understand.

And if that's the case, you could post an emulated photo, along with
an identical one that is not emulated. It would be best if the second
photo were RAW, but I can't remember if you said that 3d party
software can open Fuji's raw files. Anyway, there are probably a few
people here who would take a shot at matching the camera's processing.
  #172  
Old April 23rd 17, 05:32 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default Film scanners?

On 4/22/2017 11:38 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-04-23 02:43:30 +0000, Bill W said:

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 08:26:21 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-22 08:21:29 +0000, Eric Stevens
said:

I wouldn't argue with any of that but this guy is saying that it must
be done in the camera or not at all.

Agreed.
That is a silly position to take, particularly since most shooters are
looking for more than SOOC Acros simulations. I am.

My point is that if the processor in the camera can do it then a
processor outside the camera can do it
equally well.

One would think that, and I have been trying to do that ever since the
Fuji PR machine hyped the Acros in-camera simulation with the release
of the X-Pro2, with the X-Trans III sensor and the new X-Processor Pro.
My X-E2 does not have said processor, so I was only able to work with
the in-camera Acros simulation once I got my X-T2. Up until then I got
some pretty good results using Exposure X2, Tonality Pro, and NIK
Silver Efex Pro.

The Camera profiles in LR are camera specific, so Acros was not
available for the X-E2 in LR. It is for the X-T2, so I have only been
able to make that comparison over the last 10 days. The best of the
third party emulations has been Exposure X2. However, when compared
with the X-T2 SOOC rendering, there is a palpable difference which I
have not been able to match, and even though I say so myself, I am not
totally incapable when it comes to working with the software available
to me. While the differences are subtle, I have yet to manage a tweak
in any software to match the X-T2 SOOC in-camera Acros.

I am sure that nospam, and perhaps even you could show me just how to
do it, but I don't see you buying an X-series camera anytime soon, and
I don't anticipate nospam showing us any results.

All it needs is the right programming.

...and that might well be where the difference lies since Fujifilm is
using a proprietary processor and proprietary algorithm. It is one of
their films after all.


Yes, but... I'm not arguing about this, but does the in camera
emulation give you the results you like more than the others, or is it
really more accurate? If you believe it's more accurate, what is there
left to base that on? I have to assume you are not doing side by side
comparisons, and are working from memory. Even if you have more or
less recent film prints, they would be samples, and not the final word
on what those film prints all looked like.


Actually I can make side-by-side comparisons for the various digital
images. It has nothing to do with accuracy, and this for me is only with
regard to the in-camera Acros simulation. As far as comparing with
prints from actual Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros film goes, I have never
used it. Back in B&W film days I was a Tri-X shooter.

When it comes to making the digital comparison there is a quality and
character to the SOOC image in tone and grain (and you can set three
levels of grain which is reactive to the camera's exposure settings) a
quality which is not present in the third party simulations. As I have
said, I can get pretty close with Exposure X2, but it is not quite there.

I can understand that logic and common sense says that if Acros can be
simulated by one processor, it should be a simple matter to replicate
that with third party software on an external computer. I own and use
most of the software capable of the task, and quiite simply I have not
been able to match the job done in-camera.

I would eventually like somebody in this group, other than the usual
opinionators who don't use the Fujifilm cameras, or appropriate
software, to see for themselves, and report back, to be able to voice
their opinion. I am probably flogging a dead horse here since I don't
believe there is another owner of an X-Pro2, X-T2, X-T20, or X100F in
this group yet.


Probably worth starting a new thread if you want to explore
grain simulation algorithms.
Anyway:
Have you experimented with roll-your-own grain algorithms?
I'm thinking if it can be done in-camera then it can't be all that
complex or processor intensive.
I did a few experiments in PS CS6 and can imagine creating
grain simulation actions. There's a lot of parameter space
to explore, but may be worth the effort to reach your artistic end.
==
Later....
Ron C
--



  #173  
Old April 23rd 17, 05:38 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,747
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-04-23 03:55:17 +0000, Bill W said:

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 20:38:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-23 02:43:30 +0000, Bill W said:

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 08:26:21 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-22 08:21:29 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

I wouldn't argue with any of that but this guy is saying that it must
be done in the camera or not at all.

Agreed.
That is a silly position to take, particularly since most shooters are
looking for more than SOOC Acros simulations. I am.

My point is that if the processor in the camera can do it then a
processor outside the camera can do it
equally well.

One would think that, and I have been trying to do that ever since the
Fuji PR machine hyped the Acros in-camera simulation with the release
of the X-Pro2, with the X-Trans III sensor and the new X-Processor Pro.
My X-E2 does not have said processor, so I was only able to work with
the in-camera Acros simulation once I got my X-T2. Up until then I got
some pretty good results using Exposure X2, Tonality Pro, and NIK
Silver Efex Pro.

The Camera profiles in LR are camera specific, so Acros was not
available for the X-E2 in LR. It is for the X-T2, so I have only been
able to make that comparison over the last 10 days. The best of the
third party emulations has been Exposure X2. However, when compared
with the X-T2 SOOC rendering, there is a palpable difference which I
have not been able to match, and even though I say so myself, I am not
totally incapable when it comes to working with the software available
to me. While the differences are subtle, I have yet to manage a tweak
in any software to match the X-T2 SOOC in-camera Acros.

I am sure that nospam, and perhaps even you could show me just how to
do it, but I don't see you buying an X-series camera anytime soon, and
I don't anticipate nospam showing us any results.

All it needs is the right programming.

...and that might well be where the difference lies since Fujifilm is
using a proprietary processor and proprietary algorithm. It is one of
their films after all.

Yes, but... I'm not arguing about this, but does the in camera
emulation give you the results you like more than the others, or is it
really more accurate? If you believe it's more accurate, what is there
left to base that on? I have to assume you are not doing side by side
comparisons, and are working from memory. Even if you have more or
less recent film prints, they would be samples, and not the final word
on what those film prints all looked like.


Actually I can make side-by-side comparisons for the various digital
images. It has nothing to do with accuracy, and this for me is only
with regard to the in-camera Acros simulation. As far as comparing with
prints from actual Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros film goes, I have never
used it. Back in B&W film days I was a Tri-X shooter.

When it comes to making the digital comparison there is a quality and
character to the SOOC image in tone and grain (and you can set three
levels of grain which is reactive to the camera's exposure settings) a
quality which is not present in the third party simulations. As I have
said, I can get pretty close with Exposure X2, but it is not quite
there.

I can understand that logic and common sense says that if Acros can be
simulated by one processor, it should be a simple matter to replicate
that with third party software on an external computer. I own and use
most of the software capable of the task, and quiite simply I have not
been able to match the job done in-camera.

I would eventually like somebody in this group, other than the usual
opinionators who don't use the Fujifilm cameras, or appropriate
software, to see for themselves, and report back, to be able to voice
their opinion. I am probably flogging a dead horse here since I don't
believe there is another owner of an X-Pro2, X-T2, X-T20, or X100F in
this group yet.


In that case, I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding around
this. The way I was reading your comments, you seemed to be saying
that only the in camera processing is an accurate emulation, but now I
believe you are saying that none of the 3d party software can match
the camera, regardless of whether the camera's emulation is accurate
or not. Now that I can understand.


Yup! I have no concept at all as to how the Neopan 100 Acros really
looks, and I only have what Fujifilm and their X-photographers tells us
with regard to how well the X-Trans III digital rendition matches the
actual film. In the end, you know what is said about opinions,
especially from those who are paid for their opinions.

This is the Fuji article which started all the interest in Acros when
the X-Pro2 was released.
http://fujifilm-x.com/x-stories/the-newest-film-simulation-acros/
....and a few others:
http://fujifilm-x.com/x-stories/nordic-aftermath-part-4-the-x-t2-on-the-streets/
http://fujifilm-x.com/photographers/filippo-mutani/
http://fujifilm-x.com/photographers/don-craig/

And

if that's the case, you could post an emulated photo, along with
an identical one that is not emulated. It would be best if the second
photo were RAW, but I can't remember if you said that 3d party
software can open Fuji's raw files. Anyway, there are probably a few
people here who would take a shot at matching the camera's processing.


Lightroom and/or ACR can open the X-Trans III RAF files and the Acros
options can be found in the LR/ACR Camera Calibration panel. Alien Skin
Exposure X2 is available as a trial, all sorts of third party software
can open RAF files. Once I get an appropriate subject I will post an
RAF and corresponding SOOC Acros JPEG.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #174  
Old April 23rd 17, 05:57 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,747
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-04-23 04:32:37 +0000, Ron C said:

On 4/22/2017 11:38 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-04-23 02:43:30 +0000, Bill W said:

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 08:26:21 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-22 08:21:29 +0000, Eric Stevens
said:

I wouldn't argue with any of that but this guy is saying that it must
be done in the camera or not at all.

Agreed.
That is a silly position to take, particularly since most shooters are
looking for more than SOOC Acros simulations. I am.

My point is that if the processor in the camera can do it then a
processor outside the camera can do it
equally well.

One would think that, and I have been trying to do that ever since the
Fuji PR machine hyped the Acros in-camera simulation with the release
of the X-Pro2, with the X-Trans III sensor and the new X-Processor Pro.
My X-E2 does not have said processor, so I was only able to work with
the in-camera Acros simulation once I got my X-T2. Up until then I got
some pretty good results using Exposure X2, Tonality Pro, and NIK
Silver Efex Pro.

The Camera profiles in LR are camera specific, so Acros was not
available for the X-E2 in LR. It is for the X-T2, so I have only been
able to make that comparison over the last 10 days. The best of the
third party emulations has been Exposure X2. However, when compared
with the X-T2 SOOC rendering, there is a palpable difference which I
have not been able to match, and even though I say so myself, I am not
totally incapable when it comes to working with the software available
to me. While the differences are subtle, I have yet to manage a tweak
in any software to match the X-T2 SOOC in-camera Acros.

I am sure that nospam, and perhaps even you could show me just how to
do it, but I don't see you buying an X-series camera anytime soon, and
I don't anticipate nospam showing us any results.

All it needs is the right programming.

...and that might well be where the difference lies since Fujifilm is
using a proprietary processor and proprietary algorithm. It is one of
their films after all.

Yes, but... I'm not arguing about this, but does the in camera
emulation give you the results you like more than the others, or is it
really more accurate? If you believe it's more accurate, what is there
left to base that on? I have to assume you are not doing side by side
comparisons, and are working from memory. Even if you have more or
less recent film prints, they would be samples, and not the final word
on what those film prints all looked like.


Actually I can make side-by-side comparisons for the various digital
images. It has nothing to do with accuracy, and this for me is only with
regard to the in-camera Acros simulation. As far as comparing with
prints from actual Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros film goes, I have never
used it. Back in B&W film days I was a Tri-X shooter.

When it comes to making the digital comparison there is a quality and
character to the SOOC image in tone and grain (and you can set three
levels of grain which is reactive to the camera's exposure settings) a
quality which is not present in the third party simulations. As I have
said, I can get pretty close with Exposure X2, but it is not quite there.

I can understand that logic and common sense says that if Acros can be
simulated by one processor, it should be a simple matter to replicate
that with third party software on an external computer. I own and use
most of the software capable of the task, and quiite simply I have not
been able to match the job done in-camera.

I would eventually like somebody in this group, other than the usual
opinionators who don't use the Fujifilm cameras, or appropriate
software, to see for themselves, and report back, to be able to voice
their opinion. I am probably flogging a dead horse here since I don't
believe there is another owner of an X-Pro2, X-T2, X-T20, or X100F in
this group yet.


Probably worth starting a new thread if you want to explore
grain simulation algorithms.


That would be exactly what I will do. We seem to have drifted a long
way from the OP regarding "Film scanners".

Anyway:
Have you experimented with roll-your-own grain algorithms?
I'm thinking if it can be done in-camera then it can't be all that
complex or processor intensive.


With Lightroom and ACR Adobe gives you camera calibration profiles for
the Fujifilm simulations.

I did a few experiments in PS CS6 and can imagine creating
grain simulation actions. There's a lot of parameter space
to explore, but may be worth the effort to reach your artistic end.


Sure, especially if you take care with the available tools with the B&W
conversion. They are all there with the color sensitivity sliders, and
the grain in the Effects panel. All stuff I am very familiar with, but
LR/ACR does not do as good a job as Alien Skin Exposure X2 which is the
best of the third party class.
If you care to try, they have a trial. However, for now I can't do much
better with Acros than with what comes straight out of the camera, with
Exposure X2 as a close second.

https://www.alienskin.com/exposure/


--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #175  
Old April 23rd 17, 05:59 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,235
Default Film scanners?

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 21:38:23 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Lightroom and/or ACR can open the X-Trans III RAF files and the Acros
options can be found in the LR/ACR Camera Calibration panel. Alien Skin
Exposure X2 is available as a trial, all sorts of third party software
can open RAF files. Once I get an appropriate subject I will post an
RAF and corresponding SOOC Acros JPEG.


I'll sure give it at try. No good will come from it for you, but I'll
definitely learn something since I never do any film emulations.
  #176  
Old April 23rd 17, 06:02 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,747
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-04-23 04:59:53 +0000, Bill W said:

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 21:38:23 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Lightroom and/or ACR can open the X-Trans III RAF files and the Acros
options can be found in the LR/ACR Camera Calibration panel. Alien Skin
Exposure X2 is available as a trial, all sorts of third party software
can open RAF files. Once I get an appropriate subject I will post an
RAF and corresponding SOOC Acros JPEG.


I'll sure give it at try. No good will come from it for you, but I'll
definitely learn something since I never do any film emulations.


OK! Give me a day or two and I will put the two files up.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #177  
Old April 23rd 17, 06:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,076
Default Film scanners?

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

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.

OK, we can do that test if you want. Last weekend of June meet me on
PA74 at the top of the Tuscarora Mountain in south central Pennsylvania.
Bring a 24X telephoto and a very good tripod. I'll be using a Canon
1200mm f/11 on a Sanford & Davis tripod.
From there we can go down to the Juniata River and shoot on the Canal
walk. A wide angle would be good, 35mm or 28mm.
Finished comparisons will be based on wall-sized enlargements 16"x20" or
larger. Prints from negatives will be optically printed.


*whoooooooooooooooooosh*


Come to think of it... This is a text based group 'n such and the topics
ARE mainly technical and posting pictures is really not a requirement
for posting and taking part in the discussions, but: WTF do you shoot?
Care to share some info on that so that we can help you better? ;-))
--
teleportation kills
  #178  
Old April 23rd 17, 06:25 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,747
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-04-23 05:12:17 +0000, android said:

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

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.

OK, we can do that test if you want. Last weekend of June meet me on
PA74 at the top of the Tuscarora Mountain in south central Pennsylvania.
Bring a 24X telephoto and a very good tripod. I'll be using a Canon
1200mm f/11 on a Sanford & Davis tripod.
From there we can go down to the Juniata River and shoot on the Canal
walk. A wide angle would be good, 35mm or 28mm.
Finished comparisons will be based on wall-sized enlargements 16"x20" or
larger. Prints from negatives will be optically printed.


*whoooooooooooooooooosh*


Come to think of it... This is a text based group 'n such and the topics
ARE mainly technical and posting pictures is really not a requirement
for posting and taking part in the discussions, but: WTF do you shoot?
Care to share some info on that so that we can help you better? ;-))


iPhone
--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #179  
Old April 23rd 17, 08:54 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,076
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-04-23 07:25:45 +0200, Savageduck said:

On 2017-04-23 05:12:17 +0000, android said:

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

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.

OK, we can do that test if you want. Last weekend of June meet me on
PA74 at the top of the Tuscarora Mountain in south central Pennsylvania.
Bring a 24X telephoto and a very good tripod. I'll be using a Canon
1200mm f/11 on a Sanford & Davis tripod.
From there we can go down to the Juniata River and shoot on the Canal
walk. A wide angle would be good, 35mm or 28mm.
Finished comparisons will be based on wall-sized enlargements 16"x20" or
larger. Prints from negatives will be optically printed.

*whoooooooooooooooooosh*


Come to think of it... This is a text based group 'n such and the topics
ARE mainly technical and posting pictures is really not a requirement
for posting and taking part in the discussions, but: WTF do you shoot?
Care to share some info on that so that we can help you better? ;-))


iPhone


Oki... Kinda dunn, me thinks but there could be a challange in that!
And that's soo totally inovative. You know shooting iPhones I mean:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=iphone&iax=1&ia=images&iaf=size%3Aimagesize-wallpaper


So that's all that he shoots?
--
teleportation kills

  #180  
Old April 23rd 17, 08:56 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,076
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-04-23 07:25:45 +0200, Savageduck said:

On 2017-04-23 05:12:17 +0000, android said:

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

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.

OK, we can do that test if you want. Last weekend of June meet me on
PA74 at the top of the Tuscarora Mountain in south central

Pennsylvania.
Bring a 24X telephoto and a very good tripod. I'll be using a Canon
1200mm f/11 on a Sanford & Davis tripod.
From there we can go down to the Juniata River and shoot on the

Canal
walk. A wide angle would be good, 35mm or 28mm.
Finished comparisons will be based on wall-sized enlargements

16"x20" or
larger. Prints from negatives will be optically printed.

*whoooooooooooooooooosh*


Come to think of it... This is a text based group 'n such and the

topics
ARE mainly technical and posting pictures is really not a requirement
for posting and taking part in the discussions, but: WTF do you shoot?
Care to share some info on that so that we can help you better? ;-))


iPhone


Oki... Kinda dunn, me thinks but there could be a challange in that!
And that's soo totally inovative. You know shooting iPhones I mean:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=iphone&iax...3Aimagesize-wa
llpaper

So that's all that he shoots?
--
teleportation kills
 




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 07:16 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.