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
  #81  
Old April 20th 17, 08:42 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,274
Default Film scanners?

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:08:41 -0600, "Russell D."
wrote:

On 04/18/2017 11:45 PM, 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.


Excellent points, Tony. That last paragraph is spot on.

Russell

Tony gets it.


Well, I don't. I started with film, and had the requisite bathroom
darkroom. The only thing I didn't do was develop the film. Going
through the film steps, which you and Tony enjoyed, drove me up the
wall. I hated every bit of it, and nearly gave up on photography. But
more to the point, I disagree completely that the film steps are
*artistically* different from the digital steps. You are doing the
same thing, only with one you are using toxic chemicals, awkwardly
working slowly with trial and error, whereas with the other, you are
working towards identical artistic goals, but working much more
quickly. And the more quickly you can work, the more time you can
spend getting things exactly as you want them. Better yet, when you
fumble around with digital, all you waste is some electron flow and
some time, as opposed to some pricey chemicals and paper.

I respect those who work with film, it's hard. But I still don't think
there is any remaining legitimate reason for it, except for personal
entertainment, or sense of achievement.
  #82  
Old April 20th 17, 08:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20,740
Default Film scanners?

In article , Bill W
wrote:


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.


Excellent points, Tony. That last paragraph is spot on.

Russell

Tony gets it.


Well, I don't. I started with film, and had the requisite bathroom
darkroom. The only thing I didn't do was develop the film. Going
through the film steps, which you and Tony enjoyed, drove me up the
wall. I hated every bit of it, and nearly gave up on photography. But
more to the point, I disagree completely that the film steps are
*artistically* different from the digital steps. You are doing the
same thing, only with one you are using toxic chemicals, awkwardly
working slowly with trial and error, whereas with the other, you are
working towards identical artistic goals, but working much more
quickly. And the more quickly you can work, the more time you can
spend getting things exactly as you want them. Better yet, when you
fumble around with digital, all you waste is some electron flow and
some time, as opposed to some pricey chemicals and paper.


exactly correct.
  #83  
Old April 20th 17, 08:57 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 269
Default Film scanners?

On 4/20/2017 3:42 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:08:41 -0600, "Russell D."
wrote:

On 04/18/2017 11:45 PM, 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.


Excellent points, Tony. That last paragraph is spot on.

Russell

Tony gets it.


Well, I don't. I started with film, and had the requisite bathroom
darkroom. The only thing I didn't do was develop the film. Going
through the film steps, which you and Tony enjoyed, drove me up the
wall. I hated every bit of it, and nearly gave up on photography. But
more to the point, I disagree completely that the film steps are
*artistically* different from the digital steps. You are doing the
same thing, only with one you are using toxic chemicals, awkwardly
working slowly with trial and error, whereas with the other, you are
working towards identical artistic goals, but working much more
quickly. And the more quickly you can work, the more time you can
spend getting things exactly as you want them. Better yet, when you
fumble around with digital, all you waste is some electron flow and
some time, as opposed to some pricey chemicals and paper.

I respect those who work with film, it's hard. But I still don't think
there is any remaining legitimate reason for it, except for personal
entertainment, or sense of achievement.

There are many things that can be done in both film and digital to equal
accomplishment. There are also things that can be done better in one
medium than the other, with results that may or may not be appreciated
by viewers. In this neck of the woods there are more than 15 major art
shows per year that have many photographers in both mediums presenting
their work, and there are easily perceived differences in their prints.

In addition to working strictly in one or the other medium, I also spent
many years in "hybrid" media, where scanned film was used to make
digital prints, digital images were converted to film prints to take
advantage of its textural qualities, and so forth. There are
differences, and the artist chooses the medium to achieve their vision.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #84  
Old April 20th 17, 09:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20,740
Default Film scanners?

In article , Neil
wrote:


Well, I don't. I started with film, and had the requisite bathroom
darkroom. The only thing I didn't do was develop the film. Going
through the film steps, which you and Tony enjoyed, drove me up the
wall. I hated every bit of it, and nearly gave up on photography. But
more to the point, I disagree completely that the film steps are
*artistically* different from the digital steps. You are doing the
same thing, only with one you are using toxic chemicals, awkwardly
working slowly with trial and error, whereas with the other, you are
working towards identical artistic goals, but working much more
quickly. And the more quickly you can work, the more time you can
spend getting things exactly as you want them. Better yet, when you
fumble around with digital, all you waste is some electron flow and
some time, as opposed to some pricey chemicals and paper.

I respect those who work with film, it's hard. But I still don't think
there is any remaining legitimate reason for it, except for personal
entertainment, or sense of achievement.


There are many things that can be done in both film and digital to equal
accomplishment. There are also things that can be done better in one
medium than the other, with results that may or may not be appreciated
by viewers.


absolutely false.

anything that can be done with film can be done with digital (and with
a lot less hassle) but *not* the other way around.

In this neck of the woods there are more than 15 major art
shows per year that have many photographers in both mediums presenting
their work, and there are easily perceived differences in their prints.


completely meaningless and an intentionally deceptive comparison.
  #85  
Old April 20th 17, 10:57 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,890
Default Film scanners?

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:16:50 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

--- snip ---

Pretty much everyone reading this has several thousand dollars
invested in digital camera kit and software. And, some like the Duck,
are contemplating spending a couple of thou more upgrading and adding
to what they already have. And, he's burning a lot of gas and time
driving out to take snapshots of a field of wildflowers.


And were anyone to do it all with film they would have several
thousand dollars invested in camera kit, development tank, trays and
enlarger. Not to forget a darkroom of some kind, bench, plumbing and
drainage.

Over the years I have variously used plates, sheet film, roll film and
digital and I have no hesitation in saying that digital photography is
very much to be preferred.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #86  
Old April 20th 17, 11:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,890
Default Film scanners?

rOn Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:22:02 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Note that I never said I don't use digital.

apparently you don't know how to use digital to its maximum performance.

Probably nobody does.

plenty of people do.


Do you mean there is nothing new to be still discovered or invented?


no. how the hell did you get that crazy idea from what i wrote?????

Come now ...


indeed.


You wrote that you think that "plenty of people do" when it comes to
using "digital to its maximum performance".

That means that the limit of digital performance is known. Therefore
there is nothing new to be discovered or invented.

Conversely, if there are new things to be discovered or invented then
the limits are not known and it is not possible to claim that anyone
is using "digital to its maximum performance".
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #87  
Old April 20th 17, 11:26 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Russell D.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default Film scanners?

On 04/20/2017 01:42 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:08:41 -0600, "Russell D."
wrote:

On 04/18/2017 11:45 PM, 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.


Excellent points, Tony. That last paragraph is spot on.

Russell

Tony gets it.


Well, I don't. I started with film, and had the requisite bathroom
darkroom. The only thing I didn't do was develop the film. Going
through the film steps, which you and Tony enjoyed, drove me up the
wall. I hated every bit of it, and nearly gave up on photography. But
more to the point, I disagree completely that the film steps are
*artistically* different from the digital steps. You are doing the
same thing, only with one you are using toxic chemicals, awkwardly
working slowly with trial and error, whereas with the other, you are
working towards identical artistic goals, but working much more
quickly. And the more quickly you can work, the more time you can
spend getting things exactly as you want them. Better yet, when you
fumble around with digital, all you waste is some electron flow and
some time, as opposed to some pricey chemicals and paper.

I respect those who work with film, it's hard. But I still don't think
there is any remaining legitimate reason for it, except for personal
entertainment, or sense of achievement.

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.

Russell
  #88  
Old April 20th 17, 11:38 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ken Hart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 356
Default Film scanners?

On 04/20/2017 03:42 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:08:41 -0600, "Russell D."
wrote:

On 04/18/2017 11:45 PM, 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.


Excellent points, Tony. That last paragraph is spot on.

Russell

Tony gets it.


Well, I don't. I started with film, and had the requisite bathroom
darkroom. The only thing I didn't do was develop the film. Going
through the film steps, which you and Tony enjoyed, drove me up the
wall. I hated every bit of it, and nearly gave up on photography. But
more to the point, I disagree completely that the film steps are
*artistically* different from the digital steps. You are doing the
same thing, only with one you are using toxic chemicals, awkwardly
working slowly with trial and error, whereas with the other, you are
working towards identical artistic goals, but working much more
quickly. And the more quickly you can work, the more time you can
spend getting things exactly as you want them. Better yet, when you
fumble around with digital, all you waste is some electron flow and
some time, as opposed to some pricey chemicals and paper.

I respect those who work with film, it's hard. But I still don't think
there is any remaining legitimate reason for it, except for personal
entertainment, or sense of achievement.


I have to disagree with Mr Bill W's first paragraph. When developing the
film, artistry and trial & error should usually be somewhere down the
hall! The goal is to be able to get predictable results on the film.

That said, there may be times when you have to break the rules in film
developing to get any results at all: most typically push or pull
processing.

Once you have the best possible negative in your enlarger, then the
artistry starts: burning in or dodging, color balance, contrast, etc.

Thank you for your respect of the craft. But I don't find it hard (maybe
because I don't use a "bathroom darkroom"!), and a well printed, mounted
and framed enlargement gives me a sense of achievement.

--
Ken Hart

  #89  
Old April 20th 17, 11:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ken Hart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 356
Default Film scanners?

On 04/20/2017 04:20 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:


Well, I don't. I started with film, and had the requisite bathroom
darkroom. The only thing I didn't do was develop the film. Going
through the film steps, which you and Tony enjoyed, drove me up the
wall. I hated every bit of it, and nearly gave up on photography. But
more to the point, I disagree completely that the film steps are
*artistically* different from the digital steps. You are doing the
same thing, only with one you are using toxic chemicals, awkwardly
working slowly with trial and error, whereas with the other, you are
working towards identical artistic goals, but working much more
quickly. And the more quickly you can work, the more time you can
spend getting things exactly as you want them. Better yet, when you
fumble around with digital, all you waste is some electron flow and
some time, as opposed to some pricey chemicals and paper.

I respect those who work with film, it's hard. But I still don't think
there is any remaining legitimate reason for it, except for personal
entertainment, or sense of achievement.


There are many things that can be done in both film and digital to equal
accomplishment. There are also things that can be done better in one
medium than the other, with results that may or may not be appreciated
by viewers.


absolutely false.

anything that can be done with film can be done with digital (and with
a lot less hassle) but *not* the other way around.

In this neck of the woods there are more than 15 major art
shows per year that have many photographers in both mediums presenting
their work, and there are easily perceived differences in their prints.


completely meaningless and an intentionally deceptive comparison.


Isn't that a bit presumptive? Or have you been to the shows in Mr Neil's
"neck of the woods"?

--
Ken Hart

  #90  
Old April 20th 17, 11:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,274
Default Film scanners?

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:57:55 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:16:50 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

--- snip ---

Pretty much everyone reading this has several thousand dollars
invested in digital camera kit and software. And, some like the Duck,
are contemplating spending a couple of thou more upgrading and adding
to what they already have. And, he's burning a lot of gas and time
driving out to take snapshots of a field of wildflowers.


And were anyone to do it all with film they would have several
thousand dollars invested in camera kit, development tank, trays and
enlarger. Not to forget a darkroom of some kind, bench, plumbing and
drainage.

Over the years I have variously used plates, sheet film, roll film and
digital and I have no hesitation in saying that digital photography is
very much to be preferred.


It's not just that. For a fair comparison, Duck would also have to buy
a new memory card every time he takes 36 photos, and then a new copy
of Lightroom every time he needs to process some photos. And don't
forget to keep those SD cards in the freezer, and keep your copy of LR
away from the kids so they don't get poisoned or burned.
 




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.