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
  #191  
Old May 12th 17, 12:43 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20,410
Default Film scanners?

In article , Russell D.
wrote:


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.


you have *no* way to know what the temperature of the developer was.

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.


it doesn't matter which specific kodachrome it is. they all can be
matched with digital, as well as exceeded for those interested in
higher quality rather than be stuck in the past.

it's not 1963 anymore.

if abraham zapruder had a digital camera in 1963 rather than being
stuck using a super-8 camera and kodachrome film, we'd know who shot
jfk.
  #192  
Old May 12th 17, 12:43 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20,410
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.

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


the only example needed is that digital surpasses film in every metric,
which means that whatever film can do, digital can do it better or held
back to match it.
  #193  
Old May 12th 17, 02:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Russell D.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default Film scanners?

On 05/11/2017 05:43 PM, 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.


the only example needed is that digital surpasses film in every metric,
which means that whatever film can do, digital can do it better or held
back to match it.

No pictures--it didn't happen.

What is the metric for visual appeal? What is the metric for fun?

Russell
  #194  
Old May 12th 17, 02:16 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Russell D.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default Film scanners?

On 05/11/2017 05:43 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Russell D.
wrote:


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.


you have *no* way to know what the temperature of the developer was.


Astute. You don't disappoint.

This is more typical:

https://flic.kr/p/SiATq9

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

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


Exactly.


it doesn't matter which specific kodachrome it is. they all can be
matched with digital, as well as exceeded for those interested in
higher quality rather than be stuck in the past.

it's not 1963 anymore.

if abraham zapruder had a digital camera in 1963 rather than being
stuck using a super-8 camera and kodachrome film, we'd know who shot
jfk.

But, that is not what this is about, is it?
  #195  
Old May 12th 17, 03:09 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20,410
Default Film scanners?

In article , Russell D.
wrote:

On 05/11/2017 05:43 PM, 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.


the only example needed is that digital surpasses film in every metric,
which means that whatever film can do, digital can do it better or held
back to match it.


No pictures--it didn't happen.

What is the metric for visual appeal? What is the metric for fun?


fun isn't the issue.

not even a good attempt at moving the goalposts.
  #196  
Old May 12th 17, 03:09 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20,410
Default Film scanners?

In article , Russell D.
wrote:


This is more typical:

https://flic.kr/p/SiATq9

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

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

Exactly.


it doesn't matter which specific kodachrome it is. they all can be
matched with digital, as well as exceeded for those interested in
higher quality rather than be stuck in the past.

it's not 1963 anymore.

if abraham zapruder had a digital camera in 1963 rather than being
stuck using a super-8 camera and kodachrome film, we'd know who shot
jfk.


But, that is not what this is about, is it?


true, it's not about jfk.

however, it *is* about kodachrome, which is what zapruder used.

had he used a digital camera, the quality would have been *much*
better, as would all of the other photos taken that day.

unfortunately, they were all stuck with film.
  #197  
Old May 12th 17, 03:53 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20,410
Default Film scanners?

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


What is the metric for visual appeal? What is the metric for fun?


fun isn't the issue.


Nope. Not for you. Some of the rest of us do like to enjoy our
hobby, though.


i never said otherwise. shoot all the film you want. have a blast. that
was never the issue, no matter how hard you try to twist it into things
it isn't.

just don't go claiming the results you get from your film fun produces
higher quality results than digital, because it doesn't. it's a
physical impossibility.
  #198  
Old May 12th 17, 04:22 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,734
Default Film scanners?

On Thu, 11 May 2017 22:47:32 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 11 May 2017 22:09:03 -0400, nospam
wrote:


What is the metric for visual appeal? What is the metric for fun?


fun isn't the issue.


Nope. Not for you. Some of the rest of us do like to enjoy our
hobby, though.


I certainly enjoy digital photography; probably more than I enjoyed
film.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #199  
Old May 12th 17, 05:11 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,747
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-05-12 03:22:29 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 11 May 2017 22:47:32 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 11 May 2017 22:09:03 -0400, nospam
wrote:


What is the metric for visual appeal? What is the metric for fun?

fun isn't the issue.


Nope. Not for you. Some of the rest of us do like to enjoy our
hobby, though.


I certainly enjoy digital photography; probably more than I enjoyed
film.


From 1958 until 1968 I enjoyed everything about having fun with the wet
darkrooms I used starting with my father's, mine, school friends, &
college friends. Then other stuff happened in my life and I was done
with the wet darkroom and only used one a few times between 1971 and
1974, and never after that. All my darkroom stuff has been sold.

With the arrival of digital photography and Photoshop my old enthusiasm
was reborn. I find I can immerse myself in a whole variery of methods
of post processing. I can apply wet darkroom methodology, or modern
digital techniques. I can use the Adams Zone method, or my own
harebrained ideas, all non-destructively. It is challenging and most
importantly fun.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #200  
Old May 12th 17, 05:43 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20,410
Default Film scanners?

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


What is the metric for visual appeal? What is the metric for fun?

fun isn't the issue.


Nope. Not for you. Some of the rest of us do like to enjoy our
hobby, though.


I certainly enjoy digital photography; probably more than I enjoyed
film.


Well, I enjoy photography. Not digital photography. Not film
photography. Just photography. Going out and trying to find a
subject that's interesting and capturing it in an interesting way.
Doesn't make any difference how it's captured.

I also enjoy post-processing digital images and seeing what I can get
from them. I don't do it myself, but I can understand why someone
would enjoy doing the same thing in a darkroom with film.

nospam says fun isn't the issue. I think it's the whole issue. If he
isn't enjoying photography, he should find another hobby.


you're twisting things again, and this isn't about me either.

nospam says the results are better with digital, but "results", for
the hobby photographer is very subjective. What pleases the person
who captures it, is the best result.


missing the point *entirely*.
 




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 07:17 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.