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
  #51  
Old April 18th 17, 03:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20,740
Default Film scanners?

In article , Noons
wrote:


Film scanning is dead.

film is dead.

Really wrong.


really right.


Are you accusing me of necromancy?


you weren't a part of this thread until now.

film use may not be zero, but it's close to it and getting closer every
day.


Quite true. It's called a niche market.
Nothing wrong with it and no need to get tragic with the "dead" thing.


it's a common expression which does not mean completely zero.

film sales have dramatically dropped off (kodak filed for bankruptcy,
polaroid is just a name), many films are no longer made (kodachrome
being the prime example), film cameras are no longer made (with very
rare exception and very, very few are sold) and very few places to
process film remain.


True. Is that the definition of "dead" where you come from?
Because here it's called a niche market.
And quite active too!


you agree film is on its way out yet you say it's active? strange.

digital blows away film in every respect, although it can be downgraded
to look exactly like film for those who want that effect.


Akshally, completely wrong...
The only aspect where digital blows away film is in sensitivity- or ISO,
if you prefer that terminology.


nope. digital blows away film in *every* metric.

Everything else? Nup. PArticularly in B&W, Yes, folks still use that.
In both digital and film!


wrong.

Of course, I'd advise you to learn a little bit about scanning and film
before opening your trap again...


take your own advice. you are completely wrong.

you're just another delusional film fanboi who refuses to accept that
the outdated technology has been surpassed.
  #52  
Old April 18th 17, 03:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,899
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-04-18 14:02:01 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Noons
wrote:


Film scanning is dead.

film is dead.

Really wrong.

really right.


Are you accusing me of necromancy?


you weren't a part of this thread until now.

film use may not be zero, but it's close to it and getting closer every
day.


Quite true. It's called a niche market.
Nothing wrong with it and no need to get tragic with the "dead" thing.


it's a common expression which does not mean completely zero.


Tell that to Attila The Hun, or General Franco.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #53  
Old April 18th 17, 11:52 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Russell D.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default Film scanners?

On 04/15/2017 08:02 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Russell D.
wrote:


buy a used nikon coolscan, scan all of your film, then sell it when
you're done, as you won't be needing it anymore.

Exactly what I was thinking when I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored
with digital and started shooting film again.


bored with digital? there's so much more it can do versus film.


Why do I need it to do more?

how can anyone be bored with it?

Pretty easily. And many do.

Glad I didn't sell it.


ok.

OK.
  #54  
Old April 19th 17, 12:42 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20,740
Default Film scanners?

In article , Russell D.
wrote:

buy a used nikon coolscan, scan all of your film, then sell it when
you're done, as you won't be needing it anymore.

Exactly what I was thinking when I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored
with digital and started shooting film again.


bored with digital? there's so much more it can do versus film.


Why do I need it to do more?


why limit yourself?

if you're satisfied with mediocre, go for it.

how can anyone be bored with it?

Pretty easily. And many do.


not that many and fewer every day.
  #55  
Old April 19th 17, 03:22 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Russell D.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default Film scanners?

On 04/18/2017 05:42 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Russell D.
wrote:

buy a used nikon coolscan, scan all of your film, then sell it when
you're done, as you won't be needing it anymore.

Exactly what I was thinking when I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored
with digital and started shooting film again.

bored with digital? there's so much more it can do versus film.


Why do I need it to do more?


why limit yourself?


I'm not.

if you're satisfied with mediocre, go for it.

Mediocre is relative.

how can anyone be bored with it?

Pretty easily. And many do.


not that many and fewer every day.

False. Film sales are increasing.

Try it you'll like it. Oh, wait your not a photographer, just a talker.

Russell
  #56  
Old April 19th 17, 05:01 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,274
Default Film scanners?

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:22:15 -0600, "Russell D."
wrote:

On 04/18/2017 05:42 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Russell D.
wrote:

buy a used nikon coolscan, scan all of your film, then sell it when
you're done, as you won't be needing it anymore.

Exactly what I was thinking when I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored
with digital and started shooting film again.

bored with digital? there's so much more it can do versus film.

Why do I need it to do more?


why limit yourself?


I'm not.

if you're satisfied with mediocre, go for it.

Mediocre is relative.

how can anyone be bored with it?

Pretty easily. And many do.


not that many and fewer every day.

False. Film sales are increasing.

Try it you'll like it. Oh, wait your not a photographer, just a talker.

Russell


It's not like nospam needs my help, but your criticism is unfair.
There are two sides to photography - technical and artistic. Nospam
has never joined in any threads regarding any photos that anyone has
posted. He has never criticized any photo from an artistic viewpoint -
it's just not what he does here. He clearly has vast technical
knowledge on many photography related subjects, and the technical side
is all he *ever* posts on. And that says absolutely nothing about his
photographic skills. He could be a star, and he might suck. Who knows,
and who cares? Any criticism of his technical comments are certainly
understandable, right or wrong, but commenting on his skills as a
photographer makes no sense at all.
  #57  
Old April 19th 17, 06:06 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,274
Default Film scanners?

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:48:12 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:01:41 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:22:15 -0600, "Russell D."
wrote:

On 04/18/2017 05:42 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Russell D.
wrote:

buy a used nikon coolscan, scan all of your film, then sell it when
you're done, as you won't be needing it anymore.

Exactly what I was thinking when I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored
with digital and started shooting film again.

bored with digital? there's so much more it can do versus film.

Why do I need it to do more?

why limit yourself?

I'm not.

if you're satisfied with mediocre, go for it.

Mediocre is relative.

how can anyone be bored with it?

Pretty easily. And many do.

not that many and fewer every day.

False. Film sales are increasing.

Try it you'll like it. Oh, wait your not a photographer, just a talker.

Russell


It's not like nospam needs my help, but your criticism is unfair.
There are two sides to photography - technical and artistic. Nospam
has never joined in any threads regarding any photos that anyone has
posted. He has never criticized any photo from an artistic viewpoint -
it's just not what he does here. He clearly has vast technical
knowledge on many photography related subjects, and the technical side
is all he *ever* posts on. And that says absolutely nothing about his
photographic skills. He could be a star, and he might suck. Who knows,
and who cares? Any criticism of his technical comments are certainly
understandable, right or wrong, but commenting on his skills as a
photographer makes no sense at all.


While your point is somewhat valid, but nospam commenting on artistic
choice makes no sense. And, shooting film is an artistic choice.

For him to say that capturing on film is "mediocre" is like telling an
artist who paints with water colors that the choice of water colors
will yield a mediocre result compared to using oil. Or that an
charcoal sketch is a mediocre painting compared to trompe l'oeil.


I disagree. The way I see it, his comments on film vs digital are
strictly technical. To me he is saying that there is *nothing* you can
do with film that you cannot do with digital, so there is no artistic
choice to be make in the first place.
  #58  
Old April 19th 17, 08:06 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,394
Default Film scanners?

In article , -hh
wrote:

Set up the slide projector at home, with a dSLR on a tripod next
to it ... project, click, project, click ... this is a quick &
dirty way to get a halfway decent quality image quickly, which
is better than nothing.


Problem with this is of course that you are limited to the resolving power of
the slide projector lens, which usually is really crappy. Also, the
smoothness of the projector surface, which unless it's a movie-grade
projection screen usually is really poor.

--
Sandman
  #59  
Old April 19th 17, 08:17 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,274
Default Film scanners?

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:45:09 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:06:55 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:48:12 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:01:41 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:22:15 -0600, "Russell D."
wrote:

On 04/18/2017 05:42 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Russell D.
wrote:

buy a used nikon coolscan, scan all of your film, then sell it when
you're done, as you won't be needing it anymore.

Exactly what I was thinking when I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored
with digital and started shooting film again.

bored with digital? there's so much more it can do versus film.

Why do I need it to do more?

why limit yourself?

I'm not.

if you're satisfied with mediocre, go for it.

Mediocre is relative.

how can anyone be bored with it?

Pretty easily. And many do.

not that many and fewer every day.

False. Film sales are increasing.

Try it you'll like it. Oh, wait your not a photographer, just a talker.

Russell

It's not like nospam needs my help, but your criticism is unfair.
There are two sides to photography - technical and artistic. Nospam
has never joined in any threads regarding any photos that anyone has
posted. He has never criticized any photo from an artistic viewpoint -
it's just not what he does here. He clearly has vast technical
knowledge on many photography related subjects, and the technical side
is all he *ever* posts on. And that says absolutely nothing about his
photographic skills. He could be a star, and he might suck. Who knows,
and who cares? Any criticism of his technical comments are certainly
understandable, right or wrong, but commenting on his skills as a
photographer makes no sense at all.

While your point is somewhat valid, but nospam commenting on artistic
choice makes no sense. And, shooting film is an artistic choice.

For him to say that capturing on film is "mediocre" is like telling an
artist who paints with water colors that the choice of water colors
will yield a mediocre result compared to using oil. Or that an
charcoal sketch is a mediocre painting compared to trompe l'oeil.


I disagree. The way I see it, his comments on film vs digital are
strictly technical. To me he is saying that there is *nothing* you can
do with film that you cannot do with digital, so there is no artistic
choice to be make in the first place.


No, the difference is not technical. From an artistic point of view,
how you get there is part of the artistic effort. The film experience
goes from taking the photograph, to processing the negative, to making
prints. That whole experience is what the film photographer enjoys.

In digital, you take the photograph, process the files, and make the
print. Similar steps, but not the steps that the film enthusiasts
enjoys. I enjoy the digital steps, but I recognize that not everyone
feels the same way.

If you don't understand - as nospam doesn't - the enjoyment of going
through the film steps, and think only of the result, you'll never
understand why the film photographer does what he does.

Any non-professional who feels that the only thing that matters in
photography is the result is - in my opinion - really missing
something in this wonderful hobby.


What I feel is that whatever your artistic vision for any given
subject, it is more easily rendered in the digital domain. It might be
because I am strictly a technical sort, and have about zero artistic
aptitude.
  #60  
Old April 19th 17, 09:27 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,243
Default Film scanners?

On 19/04/2017 12:02 @wiz, nospam wrote:


you agree film is on its way out yet you say it's active? strange.


You see, size of sales means nothing to me in the context of niche markets.
"on the way out" is a complete fallacy.
And I agreed nothing.
Fact is: even Kodak is re-introducing some film types.
Of course it's not going to be "all there is".
That is the definition of niche.

The only aspect where digital blows away film is in sensitivity- or ISO,
if you prefer that terminology.


nope. digital blows away film in *every* metric.


Disagree completely and I have the facts and results to prove it.
Note that I never said I don't use digital.

Everything else? Nup. PArticularly in B&W, Yes, folks still use that.
In both digital and film!


wrong.


Really? You mean that b&w film I and others have been using is actually
not a film?


take your own advice. you are completely wrong.


Learn about using and scanning film and then come back with comments on
how to use or how many are using it.


you're just another delusional film fanboi who refuses to accept that
the outdated technology has been surpassed.


And you are one of the "modern and digital must be good" bull****
artists who think making unfounded and unprovable statements in the
Usenet is proof enough of your "profound knowledge of everything".
Totally wrong, just like your other statements here.


 




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 04:31 AM
Film Scanners Gel Digital Photography 20 February 21st 05 01:25 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 06:29 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.