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
  #201  
Old May 12th 17, 06:16 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,738
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*.


It is an absolute given that whenever you accuse someone of the
missing the point, the point missed is the point that you are the only
one concerned with.


nope.

the topic is whether digital can duplicate the film look and whether it
can exceed what film can do.

whether someone has fun shooting photos was *never* the issue.
  #202  
Old May 12th 17, 08:15 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,738
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*.

It is an absolute given that whenever you accuse someone of the
missing the point, the point missed is the point that you are the only
one concerned with.


nope.

the topic is whether digital can duplicate the film look and whether it
can exceed what film can do.


That's *your* topic. You changed the topic when you wrote that fun is
not the issue. Topics are fluid and change as a thread progresses.


i didn't change *anything*, you lying sack of ****.

russell deliberately tried to change the topic because he refuses to
acknowledge that digital has long surpassed film.

You can pound your little fists and stomp your tiny feet and insist we
talk about what you want to talk about, but topics change as people
contribute. We decide. Not you. Much as you want to be in control,
you are not.


what a hoot. the only person trying to control things is *you*.

of course topics drift. that's not the problem here.

the problem is when assholes like yourself lie about what's been said
solely to argue and bash. it's all you do. you're an asshole to the
core.
  #203  
Old May 12th 17, 08:18 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,790
Default Film scanners?

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

You can pound your little fists and stomp your tiny feet and insist we
talk about what you want to talk about, but topics change as people
contribute. We decide. Not you. Much as you want to be in control,
you are not.


yup! the committee as decided that the fact is not and to make the
exclamation "let's move on!". it did also made the specific remark that
anyone who have worked with both film and digital and says that the
results are the same is indeed a liar.
--
teleportation kills
  #204  
Old May 12th 17, 10:04 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,438
Default Film scanners?

On Fri, 12 May 2017 01:16:15 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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*.


It is an absolute given that whenever you accuse someone of the
missing the point, the point missed is the point that you are the only
one concerned with.


nope.

the topic is whether digital can duplicate the film look and whether it
can exceed what film can do.


But that is no longer the current point: just read above.

whether someone has fun shooting photos was *never* the issue.


It wasn't the original issue but it has been since I wrote Message-ID:
not far back in the
thread.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #205  
Old May 12th 17, 10:07 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,738
Default Film scanners?

In article , Eric Stevens
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*.

It is an absolute given that whenever you accuse someone of the
missing the point, the point missed is the point that you are the only
one concerned with.


nope.

the topic is whether digital can duplicate the film look and whether it
can exceed what film can do.


But that is no longer the current point: just read above.

whether someone has fun shooting photos was *never* the issue.


It wasn't the original issue but it has been since I wrote Message-ID:
not far back in the
thread.


that was after tony decided to bash.
  #206  
Old May 12th 17, 03:14 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,208
Default Film scanners?

On 5/12/2017 12:58 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2017 00:43:18 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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*.


It is an absolute given that whenever you accuse someone of the
missing the point, the point missed is the point that you are the only
one concerned with.


I am firmly convinced that is reasonable people miss my point, it is
because I have failed to adequately communicate it. Some here don't take
that position about themselves.


--
PeterN
  #207  
Old May 12th 17, 03:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Russell D.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default Film scanners?

On 05/11/2017 10:43 PM, nospam wrote:
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*.


Well, at least you admit that.
  #208  
Old May 13th 17, 12:53 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,438
Default Film scanners?

On Fri, 12 May 2017 05:07:56 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
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*.

It is an absolute given that whenever you accuse someone of the
missing the point, the point missed is the point that you are the only
one concerned with.

nope.

the topic is whether digital can duplicate the film look and whether it
can exceed what film can do.


But that is no longer the current point: just read above.

whether someone has fun shooting photos was *never* the issue.


It wasn't the original issue but it has been since I wrote Message-ID:
not far back in the
thread.


that was after tony decided to bash.


Even if you are right, what has that got to do with it?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #209  
Old May 13th 17, 12:58 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,738
Default Film scanners?

In article , Eric Stevens
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*.

It is an absolute given that whenever you accuse someone of the
missing the point, the point missed is the point that you are the only
one concerned with.

nope.

the topic is whether digital can duplicate the film look and whether it
can exceed what film can do.

But that is no longer the current point: just read above.

whether someone has fun shooting photos was *never* the issue.

It wasn't the original issue but it has been since I wrote Message-ID:
not far back in the
thread.


that was after tony decided to bash.


Even if you are right, what has that got to do with it?


because i'm responding to his attacks. do try to keep up.
  #210  
Old May 13th 17, 03:31 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 244
Default Film scanners?

On 5/11/2017 6:09 PM, Savageduck wrote:
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

...snip...

Emulating film is more than just getting the characteristic curves right.
~~
OK, I'm still fascinated with realist emulation of grain. None of your
posted treatments seem to have captured the grain quality of
Russell D's example.
~
One of the differences I've noted is grain interactions along sharp
lines. IMHO your treatments seem too clean on those sharp edges.
~
I've been playing with way to make those edges more realistic.
Here's one of my test runs on one of your examples:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/q771c6qimx...ynth%29-2A.jpg

I think I'm making some progress in my quest, but lots more work to do.
--
==
Later...
Ron C
--



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

 




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 09:52 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.