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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article 2017042117293655539-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote: http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/20...go-acros-the-d efinitive-review The article contains the statement that: "The fact that no external RAW converter can achieve a similar analogue film-like look ... ". I must agree with what nospam will probably say. If it can be done in the camera it clearly can be done in an external computer. The fact that the author of that article doesn't know how is irrelevant. What the author is saying mirrors my experience, that currently none of the available software, including the best of all those I have which provide film emulation; Exposure X2, Tonality Pro, On1 Photo RAW 2017, NIK Silver Efex Pro2, and others, can quite match what Fujifilm does in-camera. I have made side-by-side comparisons and the Fujifilm in-camera process is quite remarkable and unmatched. However, there are times I want something other than the choices Fujifilm offers, then I turn to Exposure X2. that doesn't mean it *can't* be done. it only means you personally haven't been able to duplicate it. |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 2017-04-21 23:21:37 +0000, nospam said:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Shoot and process in such a way that he has unlimited revision choices, or shoot and process in such a way that he has to do it right the first time? Shooting digital doesn't stop you from getting things "right the first time", and locking into those results without any post processing. Especially if you shoot JPEG only, and use a camera which gives you very good SOOC options with in-camera film emulation choices. here I am thinking selfishly of my X-T2. http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/20...o-acros-the-de finitive-review The article contains the statement that: "The fact that no external RAW converter can achieve a similar analogue film-like look ... ". I must agree with what nospam will probably say. If it can be done in the camera it clearly can be done in an external computer. The fact that the author of that article doesn't know how is irrelevant. as i said elsewhere, it's his own limitation, not that of digital. He isn't shooting film. He is shooting digital and leaving the processing to the camera. http://tavphotography.com/acros-vs-acros-film-vs-digital/ -- Regards, Savageduck |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article 2017042117424828144-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote: http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/20...-go-acros-the- de finitive-review The article contains the statement that: "The fact that no external RAW converter can achieve a similar analogue film-like look ... ". I must agree with what nospam will probably say. If it can be done in the camera it clearly can be done in an external computer. The fact that the author of that article doesn't know how is irrelevant. as i said elsewhere, it's his own limitation, not that of digital. He isn't shooting film. He is shooting digital and leaving the processing to the camera. http://tavphotography.com/acros-vs-acros-film-vs-digital/ it's still his own limitation. just because *he* can't do it doesn't mean it's not possible. all he needs to do is match what's done in the camera and the results will be identical. |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 2017-04-22 00:34:12 +0000, nospam said:
In article 2017042117293655539-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/20...go-acros-the-d efinitive-review The article contains the statement that: "The fact that no external RAW converter can achieve a similar analogue film-like look ... ". I must agree with what nospam will probably say. If it can be done in the camera it clearly can be done in an external computer. The fact that the author of that article doesn't know how is irrelevant. What the author is saying mirrors my experience, that currently none of the available software, including the best of all those I have which provide film emulation; Exposure X2, Tonality Pro, On1 Photo RAW 2017, NIK Silver Efex Pro2, and others, can quite match what Fujifilm does in-camera. I have made side-by-side comparisons and the Fujifilm in-camera process is quite remarkable and unmatched. However, there are times I want something other than the choices Fujifilm offers, then I turn to Exposure X2. that doesn't mean it *can't* be done. it only means you personally haven't been able to duplicate it. Let's start with dismissing any assumpions you have regarding my knowledge and capability when it comes to post processing of digital image files. You know nothing of my ability and knowledge with that particular set of skills, or what I am working toward with any of my captured images. To put the other argument to rest, I am a pure digital shooter, and I haven't shot film in years. The last time I shot film of any type was back in 1994, shooting both 35mm and Polaroid for a crime scene. I am pretty good at working with the various tools such as Exposure X2, Tonality Pro2, NIK Silver Efex Pro2, etc. The best of those is Exposure X2 which gets pretty close, but there is still a subtle difference in the SOOC JPEG and the rendering from RAW with Exposure X2. For now if I want an image in Acros (w/or wo r/y/g filter, w/or wo enhanced grain) It is simpler and quicker to do that in-camera (X-T2) while shooting RAW+JPEG. Then I still have all my options open for processing in my normal workflow. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 2017-04-22 00:54:35 +0000, nospam said:
In article 2017042117424828144-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/20...-go-acros-the- de finitive-review The article contains the statement that: "The fact that no external RAW converter can achieve a similar analogue film-like look ... ". I must agree with what nospam will probably say. If it can be done in the camera it clearly can be done in an external computer. The fact that the author of that article doesn't know how is irrelevant. as i said elsewhere, it's his own limitation, not that of digital. He isn't shooting film. He is shooting digital and leaving the processing to the camera. http://tavphotography.com/acros-vs-acros-film-vs-digital/ it's still his own limitation. just because *he* can't do it doesn't mean it's not possible. all he needs to do is match what's done in the camera and the results will be identical. Yeah. That's all he needs to do. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 10:47:51 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote: On 2017-04-16 19:21, Peter Jason wrote: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 08:29:30 -0400, Alan Browne wrote: On 2017-04-15 08:22, newshound wrote: I realise that this question doesn't have a simple answer, but it is time I started scanning some of my old 35 mm slides and negatives (mostly b&w). I would really welcome some comments or experience on hardware in the "keen amateur" price bracket. I know I can also "farm it out" but I'm interested in doing some myself at least to get a feel for what results to inspect. Is there anything which stands out towards the budget end in terms of value for money or ease of use? Amidst the other suggestions also think about archival quality scans for the "best of the best". So a dedicated scanner is the best choice. Also "pre filter" your film and slides to select those that are worthy due to content or quality. Make sure the scanner had ICE (scratch, dust correction) - thought that won't work on Kodachrome (not sure about B&W). A lot of Minolta 5400 scanners out there as well on the used market. I have a "Dimage Elite II" Is there software to allow it to run on Windows10 ?? I'd expect VueScan can handle it - check their site. That's a very good scanner, BTW. Resolution is a bit on the low side, but great DR and ICE. I don't know why I'm keeping it because I've scanned all my old slides. |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article 2017042118033086676-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote: On 2017-04-22 00:34:12 +0000, nospam said: In article 2017042117293655539-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: http://www.hendriximages.com/blog/20...-go-acros-the- d efinitive-review The article contains the statement that: "The fact that no external RAW converter can achieve a similar analogue film-like look ... ". I must agree with what nospam will probably say. If it can be done in the camera it clearly can be done in an external computer. The fact that the author of that article doesn't know how is irrelevant. What the author is saying mirrors my experience, that currently none of the available software, including the best of all those I have which provide film emulation; Exposure X2, Tonality Pro, On1 Photo RAW 2017, NIK Silver Efex Pro2, and others, can quite match what Fujifilm does in-camera. I have made side-by-side comparisons and the Fujifilm in-camera process is quite remarkable and unmatched. However, there are times I want something other than the choices Fujifilm offers, then I turn to Exposure X2. that doesn't mean it *can't* be done. it only means you personally haven't been able to duplicate it. Let's start with dismissing any assumpions you have regarding my knowledge and capability when it comes to post processing of digital image files. You know nothing of my ability and knowledge with that particular set of skills, or what I am working toward with any of my captured images. To put the other argument to rest, I am a pure digital shooter, and I haven't shot film in years. The last time I shot film of any type was back in 1994, shooting both 35mm and Polaroid for a crime scene. i'm not making any assumptions about anything about you or anyone else. I am pretty good at working with the various tools such as Exposure X2, Tonality Pro2, NIK Silver Efex Pro2, etc. The best of those is Exposure X2 which gets pretty close, but there is still a subtle difference in the SOOC JPEG and the rendering from RAW with Exposure X2. only because you didn't exactly duplicate what the camera does. if you duplicate exactly what the camera does with a given input, you'll get the same output. For now if I want an image in Acros (w/or wo r/y/g filter, w/or wo enhanced grain) It is simpler and quicker to do that in-camera (X-T2) while shooting RAW+JPEG. Then I still have all my options open for processing in my normal workflow. it might be simpler to do in-camera (mainly because it's already done for you) but that doesn't mean it's impossible in other ways. |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 04/21/2017 06:45 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Hart wrote: 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. Fair enough, but it's not the process I disagree with, it's the claimed output quality of the process. I have prints (typically 20"x24") hanging that I've shoot on either 35mm, 6x6, or 645 and optically printed all of which could be done with a digital camera, with noticeably better results. that I will stack up against an equivalent digital print- not a screen image, but an actual print-on-paper, framed and hanging on the wall. you will lose. Show me. I'm in southwest IN, near I64 & I69. Bring some of your 20x24 enlargements and we'll put them next to mine. -- Ken Hart |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 2017-04-22 03:01:44 +0000, Ken Hart said:
On 04/21/2017 06:45 PM, nospam wrote: In article , Ken Hart wrote: 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. Fair enough, but it's not the process I disagree with, it's the claimed output quality of the process. I have prints (typically 20"x24") hanging that I've shoot on either 35mm, 6x6, or 645 and optically printed all of which could be done with a digital camera, with noticeably better results. that I will stack up against an equivalent digital print- not a screen image, but an actual print-on-paper, framed and hanging on the wall. you will lose. Show me. I'm in southwest IN, near I64 & I69. Bring some of your 20x24 enlargements and we'll put them next to mine. Good luck with that. We have yet to see any evidence that he shoots anything, digital or film. ....but he knows more than all of us combined. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Ken Hart
wrote: I have prints (typically 20"x24") hanging that I've shoot on either 35mm, 6x6, or 645 and optically printed all of which could be done with a digital camera, with noticeably better results. that I will stack up against an equivalent digital print- not a screen image, but an actual print-on-paper, framed and hanging on the wall. you will lose. Show me. I'm in southwest IN, near I64 & I69. Bring some of your 20x24 enlargements and we'll put them next to mine. completely meaningless comparison. the proper comparison is to have everything matched except for the variable you wish to test, which in this case is film/digital. that means the same photographer shooting the same subject in the same lighting with the same camera settings using similar equipment (same format size, same lenses if possible, etc.), one being film and the other digital. it does *not* mean different photographers shooting different subjects under different lighting conditions with different cameras, lenses and settings. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |