Digital vs Scanners??

Mike wrote:
digital mosaics takes the fun out of photography and the art of
composition.

try taking mosaics of fast-changing light. it doesn't work. For example,
sunrise/sunset/rainbows/storms/etc.

To the contrary, I find the mosaics allow me more freedom in composition, as
I can freely change the aspect ratio, from square to long panorama.

Funny you should cite changing light as a situation where digital
mosaics do not work, when I showed exactly such an example:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...1-6c-1200.html
Not only was the sun just peeking over the mountains in the
frame, the zebras were moving. The light was changing quite fast.
It was a difficult mosaic to complete: the contrast was so low
that the software failed to find control points. I had to hand
pick them, then choose splice lines between moving animals, but
it worked very well.

Roger

I have good results doing E-6 in my kitchen sink in a plastic film developing
tank. I was using a tank that would hold 2 rolls of film and 16 oz of
chemestry. Initially I just put all my containers of chemicals in a large
heavy pot on the stove and put the burner on low until every thing came up to
the right temperature.

E-6 used to be a 3 step or a 7 step process. It may have changed. The first
step was the most critical. The prewet water and wash water was stored in a
bucket. I just ran hot and cold water in to the bucket until I got the right
temperature.

Hope this helps.

William

--
Message posted via PhotoKB.com
http://www.photokb.com/Uwe/Forums.as...ormat/200702/1

digital mosaics takes the fun out of photography and the art of
composition.

try taking mosaics of fast-changing light. it doesn't work. For example,
sunrise/sunset/rainbows/storms/etc.

To the contrary, I find the mosaics allow me more freedom in composition, as
I can freely change the aspect ratio, from square to long panorama.


The problem is that you can't compose the entire image on a viewfinder or
ground glass. To me, this is the fun in photography. Many consider this
the art in photography. Digital mosaics, to me, feels too much like data
acquisition. Sure, post-processing of the data can yield nice pieces of
art, but too much of the early process is data acquisition rather than
photography.

Funny you should cite changing light as a situation where digital
mosaics do not work, when I showed exactly such an example:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...1-6c-1200.html
Not only was the sun just peeking over the mountains in the
frame, the zebras were moving. The light was changing quite fast.
It was a difficult mosaic to complete: the contrast was so low
that the software failed to find control points. I had to hand
pick them, then choose splice lines between moving animals, but
it worked very well.


Thats fine if you are only doing 4 mosaics. I'm sure you can fire those
off within 30 seconds. Maybe 4 mosaics is all you need?

But I'll be honest. I'm looking for reasons to justify to myself why
large-format photography is still relevant. I just bought a new 4x5
camera last year. I suppose the OP was asking about dSLRs vs. larger
formats. But it is disheartening to hear about how large format
photography may now too be obsoleted by digital. I'm personally not
convinced and will keep plugging away.

In article ,
Mike wrote:

But I'll be honest. I'm looking for reasons to justify to myself why
large-format photography is still relevant. I just bought a new 4x5
camera last year. I suppose the OP was asking about dSLRs vs. larger
formats. But it is disheartening to hear about how large format
photography may now too be obsoleted by digital. I'm personally not
convinced and will keep plugging away.

I would not let others discourage you. Most artists choose a media that
suits their tastes. To me; The reasons for using a LF camera go beyond
what's fashionable or some kind of neato trick of the moment. If your
goal was to make a living as a photographer perhaps LF was not such a
wise choice. Primarily due to the long learning curve and now obvious
obstacles. Keep in mind obstacles are always passable. Keep in mind
getting past obstacles makes one more accomplished for greater
challenges.

I would certainly include LF and perhaps on occasion some of the other
trickery to keep things interesting in a professional setting, but NOT
to solely define how great of an artist- photographer I am in the eyes
of others at a given time. After all just because one does LF that does
not equate with bigger being better. What's inside the four corners is a
lot more important, what you have already said about skill in capturing
a passing moment has relevance. One either has this talent or lack it.

Failing to understand this seems to be the trap that passing artists
seem to fall inside of.
--
George W. Bush is the President Quayle we never had.

Mike wrote:
digital mosaics takes the fun out of photography and the art of
composition.

try taking mosaics of fast-changing light. it doesn't work. For example,
sunrise/sunset/rainbows/storms/etc.
To the contrary, I find the mosaics allow me more freedom in composition, as
I can freely change the aspect ratio, from square to long panorama.

The problem is that you can't compose the entire image on a viewfinder or
ground glass. To me, this is the fun in photography. Many consider this
the art in photography. Digital mosaics, to me, feels too much like data
acquisition. Sure, post-processing of the data can yield nice pieces of
art, but too much of the early process is data acquisition rather than
photography.

Composition is a matter of experience. A viewfinder is simply a
limitation on your field of view. I've found with a little
experience that I don't need a rectangle to limit my vision.
It is a very freeing feeling! Some people would find the upside
down image on ground glass a problem for composing. Experience
usually overcomes that

Funny you should cite changing light as a situation where digital
mosaics do not work, when I showed exactly such an example:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...1-6c-1200.html
Not only was the sun just peeking over the mountains in the
frame, the zebras were moving. The light was changing quite fast.
It was a difficult mosaic to complete: the contrast was so low
that the software failed to find control points. I had to hand
pick them, then choose splice lines between moving animals, but
it worked very well.

Thats fine if you are only doing 4 mosaics. I'm sure you can fire those
off within 30 seconds. Maybe 4 mosaics is all you need?

Like all tools, each has limitations and no one tool is perfect
for all situations. Because of that I am keeping my 4x5 and will
occasionally use it. I'll probably sell my 8x10 and maybe some of
the 4x5s. I'll keep my Toho as it is very light. But as I gain
experience with digital mosaics, I find I can get more high resolution
images in more situations than I could with 4x5.

But I'll be honest. I'm looking for reasons to justify to myself why
large-format photography is still relevant. I just bought a new 4x5
camera last year. I suppose the OP was asking about dSLRs vs. larger
formats. But it is disheartening to hear about how large format
photography may now too be obsoleted by digital. I'm personally not
convinced and will keep plugging away.

There is no need to justify it. There was a long thread on this topic
of digital mosaics starting last August. There is a resistance to change.
I resisted it for quite a while, but then started trying it. I can't
carry my 4x5 gear with me as much as I would like, so I started digital
mosaics as a substitute and find it can be wonderful. One need not give
up 4x5 and film to do digital mosaics.

Roger

But it is disheartening to hear about how large format
photography may now too be obsoleted by digital.

I do chemical photography just because it is _not_ digital.
Sit at a computer all day and diddle Photoshop to relax?
No thanks.

And digital is just too bloody easy to do. Digital is what I
reach for when I need a pictu no fuss, no muss, no fun,
just work.

If commercial photography was my job I would look at it
differently.

Chemical photography will probably fall into the same
category as watercolor painting. Many will do it,
few will do it well but all will enjoy doing it.

"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

And digital is just too bloody easy to do. Digital is what I
reach for when I need a pictu no fuss, no muss, no fun,
just work.

I do not agree with that. I dodge, burn, fix defects just like I
did with traditional enlarging. I even experimented with things
like unsharp mask and aligning multiple exposures in the
darkroom. In many respects digital is easier (e.g. dodging and
burning you see the results immediately compared to waiting for
the print to be developed). But digital processing is still
an art. In some ways it is more complex, especially when doing
a color managed work flow. But in the end, more precise and
better control results in better and more consistent prints,
at least it does for me.

I enjoy the freedom of working at a computer compared to wet darkroom
with all those smells, and needing a long session where you
can't do anything else.

Roger

"Roger N. Clark
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
And digital is just too bloody easy to do.
I do not agree with that. I dodge, burn, fix defects just like I
did with traditional enlarging.

So what....

I like leek soup. Going to object to that too?

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

"Padu" wrote in message
rvers.com...
Hi Larry,

What you got now is what I'm planning on building in a near future...

Here's how I play the game. I have an old Calumet 540 4 x 5 with a
selection of decent lenses. That's the front end of my system.

I just got one of these bodies from ebay... waiting for shipping. Still
need to get a few decent lenses and some other gadgets in order to start
with 4x5. I can't wait.

snip

I use the Epson 4990 scanner for input of negatives or chromes into the
computer system.


Perfect, that's what I intend to do. I've heard a lot of people saying
that the closest you can get from a drum scan on those flatbeds is by
doing a wet scan. Some people use a kit sold by one or two companies, and
some other people even use baby oil with excellent results. Do you wet
scan?


No at this point I have not found the need or desire to wet scan. I have had
only one negative that seemed to give me trouble with interference rings, to
a significant degree. Oddly enough it was a negative that I had placed on
the scanner and then got involved with something else and it had set in
contact with the glass over night and when I went to scan it produced some
substantial interference rings. Picking up the neg and placing it back on
the scanner surface and scanning right away seemed to cure the problem. I
have found that the smaller medium format sized negatives (645) seems to be
about the bottom limit of negative size that produces for me acceptable
results, that is when producing larger prints. For instance I have a color
beach scene that I printed as a 17"x45" panorama from a section of 6 x 4.5
medium format chrome that is very nice, but I had to work pretty hard to get
a print that I found acceptable. Most of my 35mm negs and chromes I have
never been able to make what I consider an acceptable print in sizes bigger
than about 11" x 14". On the other hand I have no doubt that more than a few
of the full frame scans of my b&w 4x5 negs would be quite acceptable at
4'x5' print size or maybe even a bit larger. I guess from my experience it
is just that this type of equipment and process has a basic inherent limit
in the 10x to 12x enlargement range after which you need to take other
measures to generate the quality scans and files nessacary to produce output
of good quality using digital printers.

For me it boils down to how often am I going to want or need to produce a
print in sizes larger than 16 x 20. I know that I can produce, in house so
to speak, very good prints in this size with the 645 negs or chromes and
stunning (if I do say so myself) 16 x 20 prints using the 4 x 5 negs or
chromes, on my old Epson 4000's. If I need or desire prints larger than that
I am going to have to go to an external source for prints. I know that I
have scans and files of suitable quality to do so without needs of a drum
scanner. If I should find myself in the lucky position of needing to produce
a print larger than 4'x5' I am sure that I can get a drum scan of suitable
quality done make my necessary refinements in Photoshop and then again take
the file somewhere to be printed. If I should also again find my self in the
lucky position to be making many prints in the 45" x ? sizes I am sure there
are plenty of older Epson printers in this size range languishing somewhere
that would fill the bill quite admirably. As well, with a bit of searching I
am sure that I could find a good used drum scanner if the need should arise.
Even further down this road an 8x10 camera could be procured at reasonable
cost, it boggles the mind what one could do with a scan of that size
negative or chrome, even if it was produced on the lowly Epson 4990 scanner.

snip

Another benefit to the digital backend is that within a reasonable amount
of time and practice with CS2, you can produce prints that would take a
lifetime of training and work to be able to produce in the wet dark room,
and once you have a print, its there for every, always ready to print,
the same each time, no more making a half a dozen prints just to get back
the technique you used to make a decent print in the wet darkroom. I've
gone back and digitally reprinted negatives from 30 years ago from which
I made prints that were at that time, at best mediocre to OK, on the
digital system, and they are stunning. Some negatives that were junk as
far as wet printing, can be printed the way you had it in your minds eye
when you tripped the shutter.


I'm a photoshop lover. It goes way beyond of what we could do years ago in
the darkroom. Sometimes I think it is cheating. At least it is how I feel
with things that give you that much better result taking only a fraction
of time it use to take.


I shoot mostly B&W and use Polaroid type 54 film, plunk the negative in
the tank with the sulfite, then wash and was bingo ready to us negative
with no darkroom needed. Most of the color I shoot is medium format or
35mm chromes and goes out for processing.

Have you ever tried to process E-6 by yourself (without those expensive
JOBOs)? Or is it something so delicate that you will want specific
machinery (in a pro lab) to do it?

I have in the past done my own E-6 without too much difficulty and gotten
decent quality as well. It does take a good bit of care. I have somewhere in
this hovel I call a house all the necessaries to do so up to 4 x 5 chromes.
I really don't have the space or desire to do so. I don't have any time
constraints that require me to hustle so fast as to force me to do my own
processing, or will I ever put myself in a position to HAVE to hustle that
fast. In the end I don't know if it really is economically feasible. I
really don't even know what a kit suitable to dip and dunk 4x5 chromes goes
for now days. I do know that I can get it done for about $4 a frame or $5 or
$6 a roll in a time frame that is no hardship on me, on top of which I don't
do that much color.

All said and done why should I, who at best could be described as an
advanced armature, spend $7000 or $8000 for a pro level 35mm body and add a
lot more for lenses and not be able to produce a print any better, or, much
less of higher quality than that which I can right now with my ancient old
equipment. Have you looked at what a medium format digital cost? That would
be about $35,000! I'd have to say I could go out and buy at one hundredth
the cost a good used 8x10 camera stick my lenses on it and produce prints
every bit as good or in my mind better than an insanely priced electronic do
dad! Of course I don't have to produce thousands or even 10's of thousands
high quality files for a catalog in a yesterday time frame, or would I wish
to.

So in my mind a 4x5 camera system, a pro consumer flat bed scanner, a good
computer, and low end older pro 17" printers can produce 16x20 prints as
good as anything out there and do it at around 3/5ths the cost of "JUST" the
pro digital 35mm body! Just another way to skin the cat, it just uses an old
knife to do the job.

Later Larry

"Larry Heath" wrote in message


All said and done why should I, who at best could be described as an
advanced armature, spend $7000 or $8000 for a pro level 35mm body and add
a lot more for lenses and not be able to produce a print any better, or,
much less of higher quality than that which I can right now with my
ancient old equipment.

You've hit the nail squarely on the head.

The argument to go digital is not nearly as compelling for those of us that
have accumulated a lot of legacy gear--gear that was considered perfectly
capable prior to the introduction of digital cameras.

I have over a dozen 35mm bodies, and the addition of one film scanner has,
in a sense, turned all those bodies into "digital cameras." It makes little
sense for those of us that are heavily invested in film gear to just chuck
it into the trash and buy new and expensive digital cameras--that will
probably be considered to be near-obsolete in 2 years.