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
  #181  
Old May 11th 17, 06:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Russell D.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default Film scanners?

On 04/21/2017 09:28 AM, 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 is wrong.

it *can* be duplicated.


OK, show me digitally duplicated TriX semi-stand developed in 1:100
Rodinal.

I have yet to even see a digital "Kodachrome" photo that looked like
Kodachrome.


  #182  
Old May 11th 17, 06:03 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Russell D.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default Film scanners?

On 04/21/2017 10:34 AM, nospam wrote:
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.


Sadly, I don't like the smell of coffee.
  #183  
Old May 11th 17, 06:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Russell D.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default Film scanners?

On 04/21/2017 10:14 AM, nospam wrote:
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.

Define "quality."


  #184  
Old May 11th 17, 06:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,881
Default Film scanners?

In article , Russell D.
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 is wrong.

it *can* be duplicated.


OK, show me digitally duplicated TriX semi-stand developed in 1:100
Rodinal.

I have yet to even see a digital "Kodachrome" photo that looked like
Kodachrome.


just because you personally haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't
exist.
  #185  
Old May 11th 17, 06:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,410
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-05-11 17:02:25 +0000, "Russell D." said:

On 04/21/2017 09:28 AM, 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 is wrong.

it *can* be duplicated.


OK, show me digitally duplicated TriX semi-stand developed in 1:100 Rodinal.


This is an ExposureX2 Tri-X simulation with a Rodinal developer treatment:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mgw8teb17zmzvlz/DSF4472-E.jpg

I have yet to even see a digital "Kodachrome" photo that looked like
Kodachrome.


Then the question should be: which specific Kodachrome vintage, 1936,
1954, 1963, et seq?
They each have a very different tone.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #186  
Old May 11th 17, 09:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Russell D.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default Film scanners?

On 04/21/2017 10:14 AM, nospam wrote:
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.


Let me rephrase that: What do YOU mean by quality?


  #187  
Old May 11th 17, 10:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Russell D.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default Film scanners?

On 05/11/2017 11:13 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Russell D.
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 is wrong.

it *can* be duplicated.


OK, show me digitally duplicated TriX semi-stand developed in 1:100
Rodinal.

I have yet to even see a digital "Kodachrome" photo that looked like
Kodachrome.


just because you personally haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't
exist.

True. You are the one making the claim. Show me an example. It does not
need to be yours.

Russell
  #188  
Old May 11th 17, 10:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Russell D.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default Film scanners?

On 05/11/2017 11:29 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-05-11 17:02:25 +0000, "Russell D." said:

On 04/21/2017 09:28 AM, 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 is wrong.

it *can* be duplicated.


OK, show me digitally duplicated TriX semi-stand developed in 1:100
Rodinal.


This is an ExposureX2 Tri-X simulation with a Rodinal developer treatment:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mgw8teb17zmzvlz/DSF4472-E.jpg


This example pretty much illustrates my point. That might me Tri-X in
Rodinal at 78 degrees instead of 68 degrees. This is more typical:

https://flic.kr/p/SiATq9

I have yet to even see a digital "Kodachrome" photo that looked like
Kodachrome.


Then the question should be: which specific Kodachrome vintage, 1936,
1954, 1963, et seq?
They each have a very different tone.


Exactly.

  #189  
Old May 11th 17, 11:09 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,410
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-05-11 21:25:37 +0000, "Russell D." said:

On 05/11/2017 11:29 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-05-11 17:02:25 +0000, "Russell D." said:

On 04/21/2017 09:28 AM, 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 is wrong.

it *can* be duplicated.


OK, show me digitally duplicated TriX semi-stand developed in 1:100
Rodinal.


This is an ExposureX2 Tri-X simulation with a Rodinal developer treatment:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mgw8teb17zmzvlz/DSF4472-E.jpg


This example pretty much illustrates my point. That might me Tri-X in
Rodinal at 78 degrees instead of 68 degrees. This is more typical:

https://flic.kr/p/SiATq9


Well, we are talking Tri-X and the variations to that film which can
start in the camera, and continue with the variations regarding
developer choice, time, and temps.
Then comes printing.
I have all sorts of treatments:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k1hmoi6stsk7tb3/DSF1370-E2.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/i8jlkoeavh7ifi4/DSF1371-E2.jpg


I have yet to even see a digital "Kodachrome" photo that looked like
Kodachrome.


Then the question should be: which specific Kodachrome vintage, 1936,
1954, 1963, et seq?
They each have a very different tone.


Exactly.


Yup! That gives you comments where nobody can agree that a particular
image appears to be the Kodachrome that they know and love.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #190  
Old May 12th 17, 12:43 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,881
Default Film scanners?

In article , Russell D.
wrote:

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.


Let me rephrase that: What do YOU mean by quality?


digital surpasses film in every metric, including resolution, dynamic
range and colour accuracy. no matter what film can do, digital can
exceed it or match the 'film look'.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
film scanners James[_3_] In The Darkroom 0 October 8th 09 08:37 AM
Film Scanners Stephen[_2_] Digital Photography 1 July 10th 09 07:56 PM
Film scanners anyone? Ted Gibson Digital Photography 15 January 8th 08 03:31 AM
Film Scanners Gel Digital Photography 20 February 21st 05 12:25 AM
M/F film scanners - again? Rod Medium Format Photography Equipment 17 May 31st 04 04:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:58 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.