Digital vs Scanners??

"William Hathaway
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


Nice to know. As one of the main reasons to start in 4x5 is to revive old
darkroom memories, I think I will try later (for now I'll learn 4x5 with
polaroids).
A local pro lab develops E-6 for $2.20 a sheet of 4x5. Do you think it would
be cheaper DIY?

Cheers

Padu

jeremy spake thus:

"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.

Speaking of which, aren't drum scanners becoming available on the used
market at (something close to) reasonable prices because of the headlong
rush to digital? (I've never shopped for one myself.)


--
Don't talk to me, those of you who must need to be slammed in the
forehead with a maul before you'll GET IT that Wikipedia is a
time-wasting, totality of CRAP...don't talk to me, don't keep bleating
like naifs, that we should somehow waste MORE of our lives writing a
variorum text that would be put up on that site.

It is a WASTE OF TIME.

- Harlan Ellison, writing on the "talk page" of his Wikipedia article
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harlan_Ellison)

Padu spake thus:

"William Hathaway

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.

Nice to know. As one of the main reasons to start in 4x5 is to revive old
darkroom memories, I think I will try later (for now I'll learn 4x5 with
polaroids).
A local pro lab develops E-6 for $2.20 a sheet of 4x5. Do you think it would
be cheaper DIY?

Yes, but only if 1) you had the equipment (not out of reach, but there
are some essential thing you need), 2) you learned to do it well (duh!)
and 3) you did enough film to make it cost-effective.


--
Don't talk to me, those of you who must need to be slammed in the
forehead with a maul before you'll GET IT that Wikipedia is a
time-wasting, totality of CRAP...don't talk to me, don't keep bleating
like naifs, that we should somehow waste MORE of our lives writing a
variorum text that would be put up on that site.

It is a WASTE OF TIME.

- Harlan Ellison, writing on the "talk page" of his Wikipedia article
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harlan_Ellison)

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
"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?

No, but your remark about digital being "too bloody easy to do"
seems to be, in my experience, off the mark. No different
than someone saying traditional darkroom enlarging is
too bloody easy to do. Gee after all one just lays the
paper down, exposes it and develops it. What's so hard
about that? OR "Photography is bloody easy, you just point the camera
and press the shutter." Like photography itself, and
traditional wet darkroom work, each is an art to do well.
Same with digital, and it's not that easy.

Roger

Padu wrote:

A local pro lab develops E-6 for $2.20 a sheet of 4x5. Do you think it would
be cheaper DIY?

Not unless you do a whole lot of it.

Figure not only the cost of chemicals & necessary equipment, but the
time it takes and the amount of film you waste while learning to
consistently do it right.

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

"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?


No, but your remark about digital being "too bloody easy to do"
seems to be, in my experience, off the mark. No different
than someone saying traditional darkroom enlarging is
too bloody easy to do. Gee after all one just lays the
paper down, exposes it and develops it. What's so hard
about that? OR "Photography is bloody easy, you just point the camera
and press the shutter." Like photography itself, and
traditional wet darkroom work, each is an art to do well.
Same with digital, and it's not that easy.

Roger


I have a feeling what's lost by going digital is the "handwork" or
"craft" which used to be what printmaking was about. One could (still
can) take (or make) paper and coat it and make prints.

With digital there's no contact with the media anymore — just monitirs,
keyboards, mice, tablets and printing machines that are so sophisticated
that should they fail there is nothing we can do but purchase another.

Print longevity is still theoretical — digital prints just haven't been
around long enough for us to evaluate. I have some 20 year old silver
prints framed and hanging which still look to me as good as when I made
them.

That's not to say I don't appreciate Polaroid! Love the stuff — 55 and
54 especially.

Cheers,
Mike

In article ,
mike odonoghue wrote:


I have a feeling what's lost by going digital is the "handwork" or
"craft" which used to be what printmaking was about. One could (still
can) take (or make) paper and coat it and make prints.

One can still buy factory coated paper.


With digital there's no contact with the media anymore ‹ just monitirs,
keyboards, mice, tablets and printing machines that are so sophisticated
that should they fail there is nothing we can do but purchase another.

Print longevity is still theoretical ‹ digital prints just haven't been
around long enough for us to evaluate. I have some 20 year old silver
prints framed and hanging which still look to me as good as when I made
them.

That's not to say I don't appreciate Polaroid! Love the stuff ‹ 55 and
54 especially.

Cheers,
Mike

keep buying silver paper, I guarantee someone will be making it fifty
years from now after I am gone.
--
George W. Bush is the President Quayle we never had.

No, but your remark [where you disagree with me] ...

Mr. Poster: I had a great time.
Mr. C.: No you didn't. I had an awful time.

Mr. Poster: I feel sick.
Mr. C.: You aren't sick, I feel fine.

Mr. Poster: I feel digital is too bloody easy ...
Mr. C.: I object: I find it just as difficult.

--
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

David Nebenzahl wrote:
jeremy spake thus:

"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.


Speaking of which, aren't drum scanners becoming available on the used
market at (something close to) reasonable prices because of the headlong
rush to digital? (I've never shopped for one myself.)



Shipping can be really tough, since many of these can weigh 100 pounds
to 300 pounds, or more. If you find a good deal, check into the shipping
first. There are some older Dainippon Screen drum scanners that
sometimes come on the market for near $3000. Many of those are good for
at least a 3.8 Dmax (true, not estimated).

High end flatbeds are another choice. While a Heidelberg Topaz (another
circa 300 pound scanner) can often run near $5000, I just heard of
someone finding one for $125. Quite the find, though he had to do local
pickup.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

"Larry Heath" wrote

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

As an advanced armature I bet you could be a hell of a motor drive for that
camera!

;-)