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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
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 |