 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / February 2010Anyone still shoot film?
I've got four dSLRs, but I miss shooting film, so come Christmas, my mom wanted me to take pictures so I dusted off my old ElanII, 28-105 lens, and bought a roll of Kodak Gold ( nothin' particularly fancy about this rig ) with a 580ex flash took some snaps and had the pictures developed at a local drugstore. The shots were beautiful, or at least I thought so and so did my family. The "white balance" ( as we now call it in the digital world ) was stunning. I couldn't get 50 bucks for that camera now ( minus the lens and flash, of course), so no point in selling it. In fact, I bought it at a flea market for 10 bucks. I picked up an old Polaroid Land 250 and a bulb flash unit for a song, and I can still get batteries and film ( fuji ) for it, so I'm looking to have some fun with it. I found a guy that sells bulbs for it, but, I was a little boy the last time they used them, and these bulbs have been sitting in a warehouse for a long time. Expensive 'cuz they no longer make them. I'm doing some math, and I think each shot, with flash, is going to cost about 4 bucks. Sheesh -- better get it right the first time !! Patrick > I've got four dSLRs, but I miss shooting film, so come Christmas, my mom > wanted me to take pictures so I dusted off my old ElanII, 28-105 lens, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > flash, of course), so no point in selling it. In fact, I bought it at a > flea market for 10 bucks. Go to apug.org and meet a large crowd still happily shooting film. Or go to one of the many cimmunities in flickr doing the same. And a lot of other places. > > I've got four dSLRs, but I miss shooting film, so come Christmas, my mom > > wanted me to take pictures so I dusted off my old ElanII, 28-105 lens, and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Or go to one of the many cimmunities in flickr doing the same. > And a lot of other places. FILM SUX ! DIGITAL RULES !!! > FILM SUX ! > DIGITAL RULES !!! Do you mind, Bret? "RULZ" please. Get it right, son. -- Jeff R. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 25/01/2010 5:46 PM: >>> I've got four dSLRs, but I miss shooting film, so come Christmas, my mom >>> wanted me to take pictures so I dusted off my old ElanII, 28-105 lens, and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > FILM SUX ! > DIGITAL RULES !!! Why do dogs lick their balls? Because they can. >I've got four dSLRs, but I miss shooting film, so come Christmas, my mom >wanted me to take pictures so I dusted off my old ElanII, 28-105 lens, and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Patrick I've got an old Kodak Brownie from the early 50s that I still shoot with sometimes. I have a small supply of flash bulbs for it, but I don't use them often because they're getting very hard to find. I do still shoot a fair amount of film, almost never 35 mm. though. I slit film and reload 110 cassettes for a Pentax Auto110, and shoot 120 film in a Pentax 67 and a Yashica D, as well as the Brownie (rerolled 120 film on Brownie spools). It's a nice change of pace. >>I've got four dSLRs, but I miss shooting film, so come Christmas, my mom >>wanted me to take pictures so I dusted off my old ElanII, 28-105 lens, and [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > in a Pentax 67 and a Yashica D, as well as the Brownie (rerolled 120 > film on Brownie spools). It's a nice change of pace. I have a Leica Z2X that I put a lot of film through (bought used on eBay because I always wanted a Leica and it's the only one I could afford -- It was actually made in Singapore, but it has a legit Leica logo on it and it takes beautiful pictures). I also have a Yashica Electro 35 that I use when I need a hot shoe accessory and can make use of the fairly wide angle lens. > I also have a Yashica Electro 35 that I use when I need a hot shoe accessory > and can make use of the fairly wide angle lens. It is good to know there is somebody else who still owns and uses an Electro 35. I got mine in 1969, and have always been amazed at its performance. http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yashika%20Electro35G.jpg  SignatureRegards, Savageduck >> I also have a Yashica Electro 35 that I use when I need a hot shoe accessory >> and can make use of the fairly wide angle lens. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >performance. >http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Yashika%20Electro35G.jpg There are still many happy users of the Electro 35 GS/GT. I regret selling my GSN. I replaced it with a Canon GIII QL which had a better lens (nicer bokeh) but wasn't as versatile. The very long exposure capability of the Electro 35 was a remarkable achievement. Which batteries do you use in yours? >>> I also have a Yashica Electro 35 that I use when I need a hot shoe accessory >>> and can make use of the fairly wide angle lens. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Which batteries do you use in yours? I got the L544 adapter from http://www.yashica-guy.com which I use in combination with a 4L44. SignatureRegards, Savageduck > I got the L544 adapter from http://www.yashica-guy.com which I use in > combination with a 4L44. I use a short bit of largish diameter spring and wrap cardboard around the battery. Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk Nice to hear this, Patrick. My wife is heavily digital, but I shoot only film. There's a pretty good camera shop near my work that carries all kinds and sizes of film and have film-knowledgeable people behind the counter. I love getting beautiful pictures with my obsolete junk, a Pentax ME Super (original owner) and a Minolta X-570 (inherited from original owner), both purchased new in the early 80's. I have compromised my soul, though. Because the very idea of a home dark room is simply beyond all possibility, I scan the negatives/ slides to make my prints. Does anybody else believe that nothing has been done in the last 30-40 years to improve the image that a camera captures - that all digital has done is make it easier, more accessible, and expand post- processing possibilities (no small things in themselves)? pbromaghin wrote,on my timestamp of 26/01/2010 5:30 AM: > Does anybody else believe that nothing has been done in the last 30-40 > years to improve the image that a camera captures - that all digital > has done is make it easier, more accessible, and expand post- > processing possibilities (no small things in themselves)? Yes. But I must admit shooting at 100000ISO must be essential for good photography... > pbromaghin wrote,on my timestamp of 26/01/2010 5:30 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yes. > But I must admit shooting at 100000ISO must be essential for good photography... High ISO is only one area where digital has allowed not only improvements to the image, but also the ability to capture images previously impossible with film. Digital Infrared is another. Also, the ability to see your results immediately and make adjustments in the field is not to be overlooked. And I've yet to see any film camera that can make a decent HDR image. >And I've yet to see any film >camera that can make a decent HDR image. "decent HDR image" is very close to being an oxymoron. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > >And I've yet to see any film > >camera that can make a decent HDR image. > > "decent HDR image" is very close to being an oxymoron. HDR has it's uses if it's not overdone. Here's an example I made from two different exposures. http://bretdouglas.smugmug.com/Other/Misc-stuff/HDRHC/774588953_SdgWX-X3.jpg >> "decent HDR image" is very close to being an oxymoron. > > HDR has it's uses if it's not overdone. > Here's an example I made from two different exposures. > > http://bretdouglas.smugmug.com/Other/Misc-stuff/HDRHC/774588953_SdgWX-X3.jpg Blanket objections to HDR are inevitably a reaction to the abuses of it that you see all over the place; when people see HDR used and not abused they may not even realize it was done with HDR. This is the most "extreme" HDR I've done -- 9 stops difference between the brightest and darkest exposures: http://gallery.defocus.net/Urban/The-City/9250471_LBx5E#617692909_HkEYi-XL-LB This, too, is HDR: http://gallery.defocus.net/Nature-and-Landscape/Landscape/9228587_Dy5Xk#61697961 4_bkhKR-XL-LB On the one hand, color negative film could have easily done that shot in one exposure. On the other hand, 35mm film wouldn't be appropriate there, regardless of the amount of actual detail resolved: I don't want grain in an image like that. SignatureJeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net Email address in header is valid >>> "decent HDR image" is very close to being an oxymoron. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > http://gallery.defocus.net/Nature-and-Landscape/Landscape/9228587_Dy5Xk#61697961 4_bkhKR-XL-LB On > the one hand, color negative film could have easily done that shot in > one exposure. On the other hand, 35mm film wouldn't be appropriate there, > regardless of the amount of actual detail resolved: I don't want grain in > an image like that. Nice stuff. SignatureRegards, Savageduck >>> On Jan 25, 7:42 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Nice stuff. Ayuh. Whatever Mr Nixon prefers looks good to me. /Really/ nice stuff. SignatureFrank ess >> Nice stuff. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > /Really/ nice stuff. Thank you, I appreciate that. SignatureJeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net Email address in header is valid >>> Nice stuff. >> Ayuh. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thank you, I appreciate that. Indeed; very nice portfolio, Jeremy. It ain't about the gear in the photog's hands....... Signaturejohn mcwilliams We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Jeremy Nixon <~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> saying something like: >Blanket objections to HDR are inevitably a reaction to the abuses of it >that you see all over the place; when people see HDR used and not abused >they may not even realize it was done with HDR. I agree totally. The whole point of HDR was to compensate for some shortcomings of digi sensors and when it's done properly it's excellent. I can't stand overdone HDR, but the public in general seem to love it, ged knows why. Can't folk see that badly done HDR just looks wrong? >This is the most "extreme" HDR I've done -- 9 stops difference between the >brightest and darkest exposures: > >http://gallery.defocus.net/Urban/The-City/9250471_LBx5E#617692909_HkEYi-XL-LB Excellent. I'm tickled by the black building with the castle-alike on top. What a delightful flight of architectural fancy. I'd love to have an office or even a broom closet in one of those towers. I wonder if there's a courtyard in the middle... :) >> This is the most "extreme" HDR I've done -- 9 stops difference between the >> brightest and darkest exposures: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > an office or even a broom closet in one of those towers. I wonder if > there's a courtyard in the middle... :) That's One PPG Place; it's actually not black, it's all glass. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPG_Place http://www.ppgplace.com/ SignatureJeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net Email address in header is valid We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Jeremy Nixon <~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> saying something like: >That's One PPG Place; it's actually not black, it's all glass. > >See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPG_Place > http://www.ppgplace.com/ Fantastic! It's like something from Gotham City. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 26/01/2010 11:36 AM: >> But I must admit shooting at 100000ISO must be essential for good photography... > > High ISO is only one area where digital has allowed not only > improvements to the image, but also the ability to capture images > previously impossible with film. Digital Infrared is another. Yaaaaaaaaawwwwnnn........ Obviously, no clue what film is all about and what it does... > Also, the ability to see your results immediately and make adjustments > in the field is not to be overlooked. Indeed. I use it all the time for close-up and macro photography. Very convenient. Then, I take a shot with film. > And I've yet to see any film > camera that can make a decent HDR image. Given that there is not a single digital camera that can do a decent HDR image, you have a long way to go to find a film one that does it... Once again, totally confused: HDR is post-processing, ignoramus. It has nothing to do with the camera, digital or otherwise... As for the adjective "decent" being used together with HDR, I'll let others comment. Oh wait, hang on: they did! Ah well... > Given that there is not a single digital camera that can do a decent HDR image, > you have a long way to go to find a film one that does it... > Once again, totally confused: > HDR is post-processing, ignoramus. > It has nothing to do with the camera, digital or otherwise... I anticipated your weak response. It overlooks two main points. 1. A RAW digital file often has enough Dynamic Range to make a HDR pic from just one exposure. 2. True HDR is a DIGITAL process so there is no way to do it from film without entering the digital domain. So why not start there? Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 27/01/2010 3:54 PM: >> Given that there is not a single digital camera that can do a decent HDR image, >> you have a long way to go to find a film one that does it... >> Once again, totally confused: >> HDR is post-processing, ignoramus. >> It has nothing to do with the camera, digital or otherwise... > I anticipated your weak response. No you did not. You thought you did, but once again you simply charged on precisely where I wanted you. > It overlooks two main points. It doesn't, but let's indulge your total lack of language grasp. > 1. A RAW digital file often has enough Dynamic Range to make a HDR > pic from just one exposure. and it still is post-processing, ignoramus. Post-processing is precisely what I claimed, nothing else. Check again. > 2. True HDR is a DIGITAL process so there is no way to do it from > film without entering the digital domain. So why not start there? because it's perfectly possible to do with film: HDR is post-processing, ignoramus. > Does anybody else believe that nothing has been done in the last 30-40 > years to improve the image that a camera captures - No. > Does anybody else believe that nothing has been done in the last 30-40 > years to improve the image that a camera captures - that all digital > has done is make it easier, more accessible, and expand post- > processing possibilities (no small things in themselves)? The current round of digital cameras are clawing away from film in terms of resolution and dynamic range. Higher ISO's are making difference in what can be captured. w.. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- Walter Banks wrote,on my timestamp of 26/01/2010 10:16 PM: > The current round of digital cameras are clawing away from > film in terms of resolution and dynamic range. Higher ISO's > are making difference in what can be captured. No way in dynamic range. And most definitely not in resolution. And by the way,"higher ISOs" is NOT a synonym for high dynamic range: get informed. > I've got four dSLRs, but I miss shooting film, so come Christmas, my > mom wanted me to take pictures so I dusted off my old ElanII, 28-105 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > going to cost about 4 bucks. Sheesh -- better get it right the first > time !! I shot 2 rolls of 120 and 0 rolls of 135 in 2009. Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 26/01/2010 9:43 AM: > I shot 2 rolls of 120 and 0 rolls of 135 in 2009. And yet remarkably that doesn't stop you from emitting opinions about shooting film... > I've got four dSLRs, but I miss shooting film, so come Christmas, my > mom wanted me to take pictures so I dusted off my old ElanII, 28-105 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > flash, is going to cost about 4 bucks. Sheesh -- better get it right > the first time !! I shot one roll recently for the first time in a decade. Photo CD at walgreens with kodak gold 200 was pretty crummy looking. Can anyone recommend a mail-in service with good scans? There are stores here where I could no doubt get it done but assuming that'd be expensive. Maybe I should try some really nice b&w film, like something that can do stuff digital can't with dynamic range or resolution. I really don't want to get a film scanner or get into it too heavily. SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam Paul Furman wrote,on my timestamp of 26/01/2010 9:58 AM: > I shot one roll recently for the first time in a decade. Photo CD at > walgreens with kodak gold 200 was pretty crummy looking. Can anyone Do yourself a favour and shoot decent film, instead of 30 year old emulsions! You wouldn't shoot a Mavica nowadays, would you? > I could no doubt get it done but assuming that'd be expensive. Maybe I > should try some really nice b&w film, like something that can do stuff > digital can't with dynamic range or resolution. I really don't want to > get a film scanner or get into it too heavily. Adox CMS 20 on Technidol LC or their own developer. It'll beat the sweet thingie off any medium format, digital or film. And it prints with amazing range, same for scanning. But you have to do your own development and scanning, I doubt any commercial place would be involved... Not that hard, the development bit. > Paul Furman wrote,on my timestamp of 26/01/2010 9:58 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > emulsions! > You wouldn't shoot a Mavica nowadays, would you? LOL, well I didn't know what to expect. The walgreens brand was cheaper but the guy said it's actually Fuji, which I used to use for slides, for the intense greens. I did some b&w developing & enlarging in college but never got geeky about prints from then (about 1985) till 2000 when I went digital (almost got a mavica). I could possibly set up a B&W darkroom. Enlargers & stuff can be got for cheap and yeah, it's not that difficult. Somehow I really don't want a scanner. If I was going to do b&w, it would be more fun to make 'real' prints. Though I doubt I'd really get into it much. >> I could no doubt get it done but assuming that'd be expensive. Maybe I >> should try some really nice b&w film, like something that can do stuff [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > any commercial place would be involved... > Not that hard, the development bit. Thanks. Interesting. But on further thought, I guess the thing for me to explore is high dynamic range. My 'new' film camera is a real simple Nikon EM, chosen for it's small size, not really the best for extremely precise ISO 20 tripod work, more for street shooting & wide open fast lens craziness. A quick google on that film says very high contrast also... I don't know if that's really valuable as an alternative to digital or how that might play into dynamic range. Or maybe I should be looking at very low dynamic range fast b&w film??? I really don't know what to do with it. Mail order with a good scan would be nice. Ultraviolet film????? SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam On 1/25/2010 6:01 PM Paul Furman spake thus: > LOL, well I didn't know what to expect. The walgreens brand was > cheaper but the guy said it's actually Fuji, which I used to use for > slides, for the intense greens. The last time I bought Walgreens branded film, it turned out to be Agfa. Not bad. (This was several years ago, though.) SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > On 1/25/2010 6:01 PM Paul Furman spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The last time I bought Walgreens branded film, it turned out to be Agfa. > Not bad. (This was several years ago, though.) Jumping topics - I think that's the reason to play with film; to shoot slides and be able to project them, as digital cannot do (yet) (for a reasonable budget). Forget scanning. That's mostly what I shot over the years - slides. It would be nice to pull them out again. The chore of scanning them doesn't sound fun but projecting them does. SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam Paul Furman wrote,on my timestamp of 26/01/2010 3:35 PM: > Jumping topics - I think that's the reason to play with film; to shoot > slides and be able to project them, as digital cannot do (yet) (for a > reasonable budget). Forget scanning. That's mostly what I shot over the > years - slides. It would be nice to pull them out again. The chore of > scanning them doesn't sound fun but projecting them does. Grab hold of some Astia 100 and shoot it for slides. The result will be as near to K64 as you can get and still be legal! > Paul Furman wrote,on my timestamp of 26/01/2010 3:35 PM: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Grab hold of some Astia 100 and shoot it for slides. > The result will be as near to K64 as you can get and still be legal! OK, what's the best way to get that developed? Is there a service that includes scanning at a reasonably resolution? SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam Paul Furman wrote,on my timestamp of 28/01/2010 5:58 AM: >> Grab hold of some Astia 100 and shoot it for slides. >> The result will be as near to K64 as you can get and still be legal! > > OK, what's the best way to get that developed? Is there a service that > includes scanning at a reasonably resolution? I don't know about your neck of the woods, Paul: I live in Sydney, Australia. Astia is developed in E6, same as virtually any other slide film you may get nowadays. As for scanning: either ask a friend with a good scanner or pummel and maim a lab to do it for you at a reasonable cost. Ebay has various such services at high rez, for a range of prices. Dare I mention Ken Rockwell seems to have it down pat and so does Chris Weeks, both in SoCal. One last suggestion: do not underexpose Astia to "increase the colour contrast". It'll ruin the colour balance. Go spot-on in the exposure and use 100 ISO on the meter. Those who do their own scanning can recover from this problem easily, but you won't be able to if you farm it out. > One last suggestion: do not underexpose Astia to "increase the colour > contrast". It'll ruin the colour balance. Go spot-on in the exposure and > use 100 ISO on the meter. Those who do their own scanning can recover from > this problem easily, but you won't be able to if you farm it out. If Astia's not got enough colour for you why not go for Provia? Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk Peter Chant wrote,on my timestamp of 29/01/2010 9:01 AM: >> One last suggestion: do not underexpose Astia to "increase the colour >> contrast". It'll ruin the colour balance. Go spot-on in the exposure and >> use 100 ISO on the meter. Those who do their own scanning can recover from >> this problem easily, but you won't be able to if you farm it out. > > If Astia's not got enough colour for you why not go for Provia? I didn't say Astia didn't have enough colour for me. Can't you read? I said underexposing it is an error. Comes from the old adage that E6 should be underexposed by 1/3 stop to "enhance" colour. Don't do it with Astia. Simple, really. I'd *never* use Provia except for the new 400X. The rest of the Provia range is old emulsion technology that Fuji has not updated in years, due to the low demand from professionals. They concentrated instead on improving the Superia, Velvia and Astia film, which is nowadays vastly superior to any of the older Provias. The often cited quote that Provia is the best slide film comes from folks who last experimented with film 10 years ago and have no clue what is available today. But they continue to propagate their old fashioned information as if it was gospel. > Peter Chant wrote,on my timestamp of 29/01/2010 9:01 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > should be underexposed by 1/3 stop to "enhance" colour. Don't do it with > Astia. Simple, really. OK, thanks because I would have tried that, from memory... > I'd *never* use Provia except for the new 400X. The rest of the Provia > range is old emulsion technology that Fuji has not updated in years, due [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is available today. But they continue to propagate their old fashioned > information as if it was gospel. > Peter Chant wrote,on my timestamp of 29/01/2010 9:01 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > should be underexposed by 1/3 stop to "enhance" colour. Don't do it with > Astia. Simple, really. Yes, I can read perfectly. Why get so defensive? I was merely adding a suggestion that if Astia was not saturated enough for _someone_ why not use Provia. What you lacked in your statement was what someone should do if they wanted more contrast. > I'd *never* use Provia except for the new 400X. The rest of the Provia > range is old emulsion technology that Fuji has not updated in years, due > to the low > demand from professionals. They concentrated instead on improving the > Superia, Velvia and Astia film, which is nowadays vastly superior to any > of the older Provias. Bit of a jump to go from Astia to Velvia if you want more saturation? You seem to be advocating using one of the other with no middle option. > The often cited quote that Provia is the best slide film comes from folks > who last experimented with film 10 years ago and have no clue what is > available today. But they continue to propagate their old fashioned > information as if it was gospel. Your horse is rather high. Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk Peter Chant wrote,on my timestamp of 31/01/2010 1:28 AM: >>> If Astia's not got enough colour for you why not go for Provia? >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yes, I can read perfectly. Why get so defensive? Because I'm fed up with folks who can't read and distort what is said. > I was merely adding a > suggestion that if Astia was not saturated enough for _someone_ why not use > Provia. No. You asked a question making a statement attributed to me. It's very clear, quoted right at the top of this post. I never stated that. And also because Provia is far from being as saturated in colour as Astia is. > What you lacked in your statement was what someone should do if > they wanted more contrast. Use Velvia. Contrast is *not* the same as saturation. If you can't understand that, I suggest you try to learn the basics of film imaging before jumping in with statemwents like that. > Bit of a jump to go from Astia to Velvia if you want more saturation? Velvia does not give you more colour satutarion than Astia, it gives you more contrast. The two are not synonyms. Like I said: ignore the old chestnuts, Astia and Velvia are *not* what they were 10 years ago. > You seem to be advocating using one of the other with no middle option. There is no need for a middle option. >> The often cited quote that Provia is the best slide film comes from folks >> who last experimented with film 10 years ago and have no clue what is >> available today. But they continue to propagate their old fashioned >> information as if it was gospel. > > Your horse is rather high. You got it. > Peter Chant wrote,on my timestamp of 31/01/2010 1:28 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Because I'm fed up with folks who can't read and distort what is said. I did not distort. So why act like I did? >> I was merely adding a >> suggestion that if Astia was not saturated enough for _someone_ why not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And also because Provia is far from being as saturated in colour as Astia > is. OK, here was what I wrote: "If Astia's not got enough colour for you why not go for Provia?" OK, it can be read to appear to be a question to yourself. However, your offence of the miss-placed word "you" is grossly disproportionate. What in the sentence suggesting use of Provia is so offensive that you need to respond so strongly? Also note, that it can also be read, as it was intended, that "you" refers to the reader. >> What you lacked in your statement was what someone should do if >> they wanted more contrast. > > Use Velvia. Contrast is *not* the same as saturation. If you can't > understand that, I suggest you try to learn the basics of film imaging > before jumping in with statemwents like that. Simple typo. Your last sentence is unnecessarily and condescending. >> Bit of a jump to go from Astia to Velvia if you want more saturation? > > Velvia does not give you more colour satutarion than Astia, it gives you > more > contrast. The two are not synonyms. Like I said: ignore the old > chestnuts, Astia and Velvia are *not* what they were 10 years ago. Fair comment that technologies have changed. Certainly I never got along the old Velvia 50 (before Velvia was temporarily discontinued), Highlights would blowout with very little provocation. I got on much better with the newer stuff. However, on the subject of colour saturation, Astia versus Velvia, how do you draw that conclusion: http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/color_reversalfilms/astia_100f/ "Superb Color Fidelity" http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/color_reversalfilms/velvia_100f/ "Color Reproduction with Ultra-high Color Saturation" http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/color_reversalfilms/velvia_100/ "Ultrahigh-saturation Color Reproduction" Reading the write-ups by Fuji it would seem that, as I said, Velvia has more saturation than Astia. > > You seem to be advocating using one of the other with no middle option. > > There is no need for a middle option. Why not? A middle option is perfectly valid. Someone may prefer BW, vivid colour or more neutral colours. Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > However, on the subject of colour saturation, Astia versus Velvia, how do > you draw that conclusion: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Reading the write-ups by Fuji it would seem that, as I said, Velvia has more > saturation than Astia. Dude, you realize you are arguing with Noons, right? Facts mean nothing to him. However, I do agree with his choice of Astia (I think he said that was his fave). Astia gives the most realistic, natural colors and is preferred for skin tones and color accuracy. It will give the best results when shooting a snow scene, for example. I never understood why some folks went with the supercharged color of Velvia or some of these other over-the-top emulsions that crank the Saturation up to 11. I guess it was useful when projecting slides, but with today's digital workflow I'd rather have a film like Astia that gives a realistic depiction of what is being shot. I can always boost the colors later if need be. Let's put it this way .... if you can view a projected slide and tell what emulsion it is by it's color signature, I view that as a weakness, not a strength. And I doubt many of these folks who sing the praises of Velvia could tell it from Kodachrome or even Astia just by looking at the photo. >Let's put it this way .... if you can view a projected slide and tell >what emulsion it is by it's color signature, I view that as a >weakness, not a strength. Indeed. >And I doubt many of these folks who sing >the praises of Velvia could tell it from Kodachrome or even Astia just >by looking at the photo. Disagee. I have Kodachrome 64 Pro slides shot during the winter months in a land far away. They lack contrast and colour, and have a colour balance just cool enough to send a shiver up your spine. Who would want that? I did - the projected slides not only look exactly how I remembered the experience, they elicit the shiver I felt as I was taking them. Luckily, I was wise enough to also buy batches of Pro K25, Ektachrome P200 & 160T for the more unusual shots. I selected my films because I could tell the difference. I have also used Velvia to good effect, but so rarely that it drove me to digital so I can "dial-in" its effect on the rare occasion it's useful :) Pete >However, I do agree with his choice of Astia (I think he said that was >his fave). >Astia gives the most realistic, natural colors and is preferred for >skin tones and color accuracy. >It will give the best results when shooting a snow scene, for example. I tend to shoot things and landscape and people very rarely. I suspect, that on the occasions I did I would have been better off with Astia (or Sensia). > I never understood why some folks went with the supercharged color of > Velvia or some of these other over-the-top emulsions that crank the > Saturation up to 11. I guess it was useful when projecting slides, but > with today's digital workflow I'd rather have a film like Astia that > gives a realistic depiction of what is being shot. I can always boost > the colors later if need be. In 35mm I've been very happy with Provia. More punch than Sensia (shot one roll of Astia, but I'd become a Provia fan by then). However, a couple of years back I got hold of a TLR and went 6x6. Since I could not project 6x6 and Kodak Portra scanned well I changed to that. Different beast to Provia! yet I was happy with the colour that way. I do have some 6x6 in provia / velvia - pity I can't project it, it would be awesome. > Let's put it this way .... if you can view a projected slide and tell > what emulsion it is by it's color signature, I view that as a > weakness, not a strength. And I doubt many of these folks who sing > the praises of Velvia could tell it from Kodachrome or even Astia just > by looking at the photo. I suspect it depends is the answer here on what was intended. Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 1/02/2010 4:05 PM: > Dude, you realize you are arguing with Noons, right? Facts mean > nothing to him. > > However, I do agree with his choice of Astia (I think he said that was > his fave). For once he agrees with facts, while disagreeing. Unreal... > with today's digital workflow I'd rather have a film like Astia that > gives a realistic depiction of what is being shot. I can always boost > the colors later if need be. Bingo. > Let's put it this way .... if you can view a projected slide and tell > what emulsion it is by it's color signature, I view that as a > weakness, not a strength. Agreed 100%. > And I doubt many of these folks who sing > the praises of Velvia could tell it from Kodachrome or even Astia just > by looking at the photo. Hmmm, here I disagree. In the sense of looking at a slide, not a scan or a projection. I can usually tell Velvia from all others, provided there is a bit of sunny green and/or yellow somewhere. As well as Provia and old Astia, if there is sky visible. Kodachrome can be a strange beast. K64 can be very obvious, but seldom K25. Peter Chant wrote,on my timestamp of 1/02/2010 11:07 AM: >>> Yes, I can read perfectly. Why get so defensive? >> Because I'm fed up with folks who can't read and distort what is said. > > I did not distort. So why act like I did? Yes you did. I never said Astia did not have enough colour for me. > OK, here was what I wrote: > > "If Astia's not got enough colour for you why not go for Provia?" Exactly. Can't you read? > OK, it can be read to appear to be a question to yourself. Amazing!!! No, not possible? > However, your > offence of the miss-placed word "you" is grossly disproportionate. My offence is not at the misplaced word "you". Read again. > What in > the sentence suggesting use of Provia is so offensive that you need to > respond so strongly? The fact it states something I didn't say. >> Use Velvia. Contrast is *not* the same as saturation. If you can't >> understand that, I suggest you try to learn the basics of film imaging >> before jumping in with statemwents like that. > > Simple typo. No, it's not a typo. You and many others continue to perpetuate nonsense and mistruths about film with those "typos". Contrast is not the same as saturation. You used the terms interchangeably. They aren't. > Your last sentence is unnecessarily and condescending. No, it's simple truth. > However, on the subject of colour saturation, Astia versus Velvia, how do > you draw that conclusion: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Reading the write-ups by Fuji it would seem that, as I said, Velvia has more > saturation than Astia. Good. It's also good you didn't mention the Provia write-ups. I suggest you keep reading them. Stay away from actually using film, because clearly write-ups are all you need. >> There is no need for a middle option. > > Why not? A middle option is perfectly valid. Someone may prefer BW, vivid > colour or more neutral colours. Since when is BW a middle option between Velvia and Astia? Can you make sense for once? Once more, to see if you can understand the basics: - if you want correct colour balance and high colour reproduction and density (saturation), use Astia. - if you prefer high contrast as well as strong colour saturation, use Velvia. Simple, really. Now, if you prefer washed out blues/greens, and reds that look magenta, use Provia. Just like you've been told by the "experts". >> "If Astia's not got enough colour for you why not go for Provia?" > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Amazing!!! > No, not possible? You are taking sentence, a very short one at that, one that I have already said was perhaps not my best worded of sentences, an imbuing it with far more importance than was every intended. > > However, your >> offence of the miss-placed word "you" is grossly disproportionate. > > My offence is not at the misplaced word "you". > Read again. Ok, you are deeply offended that I appear to state that YOU should consider Provia, not the poster you followed up. But the issue is trivial, see above. This is unnecessary pedantry and bullishness. >> What in >> the sentence suggesting use of Provia is so offensive that you need to >> respond so strongly? > > The fact it states something I didn't say. You are put out that I implied that Astia did not have enough colour saturation to reply that strongly to my post? >>> Use Velvia. Contrast is *not* the same as saturation. If you can't >>> understand that, I suggest you try to learn the basics of film imaging [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > mistruths about film with those "typos". Contrast is not the same as > saturation. You used the terms interchangeably. They aren't. Come on, how am I perpetuating nonsense? I have already stated that I made one typo. If I had written a long treatise where I showed no comprehension of the difference yet tried to appear authorative, fair call. However, a simple response such as ' "Contrast", don't you mean "satuaration"? ' or visa versa, would have sufficed. >> Your last sentence is unnecessarily and condescending. > > No, it's simple truth. No it is not. It was a undeserved rant. >> However, on the subject of colour saturation, Astia versus Velvia, how do >> you draw that conclusion: http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/color_reversalfilms/astia_100f/ >> "Superb Color Fidelity" http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/color_reversalfilms/velvia_100f/ >> "Color Reproduction with Ultra-high Color Saturation" http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/color_reversalfilms/velvia_100/ >> "Ultrahigh-saturation Color Reproduction" >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > keep reading them. Stay away from actually using film, because clearly > write-ups are all you need. The assertion made was about the relative merits of Astia and Velvia. There was no need to add Provia, it would just complicate the response. I actually used film exclusively up to spring last year. I did not shoot digital at all. (5 snaps on a camera phone do not count!). Up until I I got the TLR for colour I primarily used Provia. Occasionally used Velvia in both 35mm and TLR. Have used a fair amount of Sensia in the past. Admittedly only one or two rolls of Astia, but it seemed similar to Sensia which I was much more familiar with, and is widely reported to be similar to. So, whist not being the most active or technically sound member of the newsgroup I clearly don't fall into the armchair category you ascribe me to. There is evidence on line I actually use/have used film. However, all immediately apparent from you is bluster. >>> There is no need for a middle option. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Since when is BW a middle option between Velvia and Astia? Can you make > sense for once? To use your own argumentative style, can you read? Fistly I reprise the idea of an option between Astia and Provia. The next sentence is clearly a widening of the discussion, using a related subject, colour saturation/presentation, to illustrate that there are a wide range of personal choices. It presented a number of options on colour presentation. Nowhere did it draw parallels between B&W, Astia and Provia. > Once more, to see if you can understand the basics: > - if you want correct colour balance and high colour reproduction and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Simple, really. Sorry, I fail to see why you are repeating these? > Now, if you prefer washed out blues/greens, and reds that look magenta, > use > Provia. Just like you've been told by the "experts". Ah, so you simply take offence at the suggestion of using Provia. Perhaps this is am apt observation: http://xkcd.com/386/ I don't think there is a useful purpose for taking this conversation further. Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk Peter Chant wrote,on my timestamp of 3/02/2010 11:23 AM: > So, whist not being the most active or technically sound member of the > newsgroup I clearly don't fall into the armchair category you ascribe me to. Good for you. > There is evidence on line I actually use/have used film. However, all > immediately apparent from you is bluster. Try looking. It works. > more deletia >> Once more, to see if you can understand the basics: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Sorry, I fail to see why you are repeating these? Because you still haven't got it. >> Now, if you prefer washed out blues/greens, and reds that look magenta, >> use >> Provia. Just like you've been told by the "experts". > > Ah, so you simply take offence at the suggestion of using Provia. No. I'm simply stating nowadays it's a film with completely out of date technology and it is far behind other modern films. Fuji is not going to spend any resources upgrading a "pro" film, when nearly all "pros" are using digital and the few exceptions use Velvia or Astia. They are much more likely to upgrade non-pro film, which is exactly and precisely what they have done. Hence, it is totally useless to propose to anyone of amateur level the alternative of using Provia just because once, a long time ago, it was a "pro" film. It only serves to increase the "film doesn't work" feeling. > Perhaps this is am apt observation: > > http://xkcd.com/386/ Precisely. > I don't think there is a useful purpose for taking this conversation > further. Oh, was it a conversation? > Jumping topics - I think that's the reason to play with film; to shoot > slides and be able to project them, as digital cannot do (yet) (for a > reasonable budget). Forget scanning. That's mostly what I shot over the > years - slides. It would be nice to pull them out again. The chore of > scanning them doesn't sound fun but projecting them does. It was the scanning which got me to take the digital plunge in the end. Just got fed up with it. Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk >> Jumping topics - I think that's the reason to play with film; to shoot >> slides and be able to project them, as digital cannot do (yet) (for a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It was the scanning which got me to take the digital plunge in the end. > Just got fed up with it. And my plan of getting a slide projector means finding victims to subject to a slide show ;-) (I do occasionally give slide shows to groups and digital really stinks for that so in all seriousness, this would be a really neat capability. Theoretically, I could present my digital pics better with film slides shot off a 1920x1200 monitor.) >>> Jumping topics - I think that's the reason to play with film; to shoot >>> slides and be able to project them, as digital cannot do (yet) (for a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Theoretically, I could present my digital pics better with film slides >shot off a 1920x1200 monitor.) I have done that, in the early 90s. I was already using an early version of Powerpoint, but had to give a presentation where the technology was still 35 mm. slide projectors. It actually worked fairly well. >>(I do occasionally give slide shows to groups and digital really stinks >>for that so in all seriousness, this would be a really neat capability. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > technology was still 35 mm. slide projectors. It actually worked > fairly well. I got a Aldia Tutor 1000 - made for lecture halls with a 1000W (serious) ancient bulb. Worked well, but had to feed a slide at a time. Got a Leica Pradovit 150 - and found that after a while more than a five magazines of my own unedited slides in one sitting bored me as well! One thing to note, the Aldis blew cold air over the slide and it never popped whereas the Leica all slides popped. Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk >>> (I do occasionally give slide shows to groups and digital really stinks >>> for that so in all seriousness, this would be a really neat capability. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Pradovit 150 - and found that after a while more than a five magazines of my > own unedited slides in one sitting bored me as well! I am having second thoughts about the practicality of slides. I showed super-8 movies on my projector well past their obsolescence and it was cool but has been a long time... I traded the (nice) projector to a film student in exchange for digitizing my old films. I have a digital projector but I don't use it any more either, partly because of the low res and awful contrast problems. > One thing to note, the Aldis blew cold air over the slide and it never > popped whereas the Leica all slides popped. > > Pete >>>(I do occasionally give slide shows to groups and digital really stinks >>>for that so in all seriousness, this would be a really neat capability. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> technology was still 35 mm. slide projectors. It actually worked >> fairly well. Having given a few slide shows myself, one of the things I found was that if you tried to show too many slides, it would bore your audience to death. I found it far better to show fewer slides, but to spend some more time with each one.....When you pick the ones to show, try to find some interesting story about each one, and leave it on the screen for a few minutes while you and your audience discuss it. This makes for a far more interesting show. > >>>(I do occasionally give slide shows to groups and digital really stinks > >>>for that so in all seriousness, this would be a really neat capability. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > story about each one, and leave it on the screen for a few minutes while you > and your audience discuss it. This makes for a far more interesting show. I did a slide show (on a computer) a few years ago for our canoe club. I put in what I thought would be way more photos then any person would sit through, around 340 if I remember correctly. The show was running on its own during our year end party so people would wonder up and watch, I was amazed when many of the people would watch the whole thing several times through. The next year I upped the number of photos to around 800, and still there were people who watched the whole thing. What I have found is people want to view photos, that they find interesting. In this case it was photos of the season that just finish, mostly from races. Scott On 1/29/2010 10:58 PM Scott W spake thus: > I did a slide show (on a computer) a few years ago for our canoe > club. I put in what I thought would be way more photos then any [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > people want to view photos, that they find interesting. In this case > it was photos of the season that just finish, mostly from races. It's probably a little more compelling when there's a chance your own face, or your friend's faces, will come up among the images. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > On 1/29/2010 10:58 PM Scott W spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It's probably a little more compelling when there's a chance your own > face, or your friend's faces, will come up among the images. Exactly and I make not apologies for it. It helps if the photos are technically good enough that people can see interesting things in them, for instance the expressions on people faces while they are really pushing right at the finish line. These are photos that matter to people because they deal with their lives in some way. And it is not just photos of the people in the club that they enjoy viewing. I have photos going back around 8 years, the canoe club grounds have changed a lot in that time and people really enjoy seeing photos of what it looked like over the years. This photo for example is from 2003 http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4315389503/sizes/o/ That is a photo that would have had very little interest in 2003, but now it shows how differenet things looked back then. The interest in a photo like that will grow with time. Scott > "Peter Chant" <pet...@MpeteOzilla.Vco.ukE> wrote: >> Having given a few slide shows myself, one of the things I found was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> and leave it on the screen for a few minutes while you and your >> audience discuss it. This makes for a far more interesting show. > I did a slide show (on a computer) a few years ago for our canoe > club. I put in what I thought would be way more photos then any > person would sit through, around 340 if I remember correctly. The > show was running on its own during our year end party so people > would wander up and watch, I was amazed when many of the people > would watch the whole thing several times through. Literary/TV reference: Harry Turner's "Hell's Bells," and the 1971 Night Gallery adaptation. Super brief summary/spoiler: There's an infinite slide show chamber in both Hell _and_ Heaven. Long timer, yes, this note is a rerun: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/msg/874ef8dc2e8554e4?hl=en SignatureMike Benveniste -- mhb@murkyether.com (Clarification Required) Don't succumb to the false authority of a tool or model. There is no substitute for thinking. > Literary/TV reference: Harry Turner's "Hell's Bells," and the 1971 Night > Gallery adaptation. Super brief summary/spoiler: There's an infinite > slide show chamber in both Hell _and_ Heaven. Update: Available on Hulu: http://snipurl.com/u8qme SignatureMike Benveniste -- mhb@murkyether.com (Clarification Required) Don't succumb to the false authority of a tool or model. There is no substitute for thinking. Paul Furman wrote,on my timestamp of 26/01/2010 1:01 PM: > LOL, well I didn't know what to expect. The walgreens brand was cheaper > but the guy said it's actually Fuji, which I used to use for slides, for > the intense greens. I did some b&w developing & enlarging in college but Try some of the latest Fuji Xtra-400 and you will never use any other colour neg! Ektar 100 is no slouch either. Use it indoors with tungsten light and it gives amazing colour tonality, even though it's supposed to be "daylight". > Thanks. Interesting. But on further thought, I guess the thing for me to > explore is high dynamic range. My 'new' film camera is a real simple Again: Adox CMS20 on Technidol. It easily exceeds the best my 9000 ED scanner can do, and that is no slouch. Easily more than 10 stops exposure range, without even doing anything extra. And it's not just profiles: doing a positive scan of the negative still exceeds the dynamic range of the 9000! > Nikon EM, chosen for it's small size, not really the best for extremely > precise ISO 20 tripod work, more for street shooting & wide open fast > lens craziness. There you go: Tri-X + Xtol. Push 1.5 or even 2 stops. The best combination ever for street shooting. And the EM is just perfect for that. Plonk a 50/1.8 on it and have a heap of cheap fun! > A quick google on that film says very high contrast > also... I don't know if that's really valuable as an alternative to > digital or how that might play into dynamic range. Not with Technidol or their own developer. It's a high contrast microfilm, but developed with a low contrast soup it has immense dynamic range and a clear substrate. > Mail order with a good scan would be nice. B&W is worth developing at home, it's fun and easy as pie. Then later, you start getting into the real interesting stuff: Rodinal at 1:200, no agitation, half an hour development time. Now, *that* is fun! Smoothest grey gradation I have ever seen! Superb with Fuji Acros 100. > Ultraviolet film????? Dunno if there is any. Well in a sense they all are, as they all are sensitive to UV, I suppose? > Ultraviolet film????? Most B&W films respond well to ultraviolet. I think Plus-x in 35mm has a UV filter layer, but Tri-x doesn't and none of the ilford films do. There is a nifty black (related to Woods glass) UV pass filter from B+W which isn't too expensive and is fun to play with. (Some modern lenses block more UV than normal glass, and some lenses don't do a very good job with UV light so you will need to try a test roll. A filter factor of 20 or more is a good guess for exposure.) Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net >> Ultraviolet film????? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a very good job with UV light so you will need to try a test roll. > A filter factor of 20 or more is a good guess for exposure.) Oh. I thought there was special film so you don't have to put a black filter on. I guess not. SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam > Oh. I thought there was special film so you don't have to put a black > filter on. I guess not. I expect someone could make one, but the potential market would be tiny. Ultra-violet photography does not usually result in dramatic pictures. It is still an interesting thing to try out. Film is no problem - Tri-x and Ilford films work fine. The filter is no problem - I got mine at B&H for not too much. Lenses can be a problem. Special UV lenses with quartz and fluorite instead of glass are rare and expensive. Some regular lenses will pass much of the UVA spectrum, but many modern lenses have built in UV filtration. You can't tell by looking, and they usually don't tell you in the spec sheet. El-Nikkor enlarging lenses are known not only pass near-UV but to be well corrected for ultraviolet. If you can find a helical extension tube and an adapter, you are set. Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net >> Oh. I thought there was special film so you don't have to put a black >> filter on. I guess not. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > for ultraviolet. If you can find a helical extension tube and an > adapter, you are set. I've got an 80mm f/5.6 that'll infinity focus on my bellows with a recessed mount. Maybe I was thinking of infrared film? >I shot one roll recently for the first time in a decade. Photo CD at >walgreens with kodak gold 200 was pretty crummy looking. Can anyone >recommend a mail-in service with good scans? I can recommend that you don't use Kodak Gold 200. I have a feeling that the people who think that digital gives far better results than film only ever used low quality films such as Kodak Gold 200. >> I shot one roll recently for the first time in a decade. Photo CD at >> walgreens with kodak gold 200 was pretty crummy looking. Can anyone [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > better results than film only ever used low quality films such as > Kodak Gold 200. Seriously. Shooting Kodak Gold 200 and getting a CD from Walgreens is the film equivalent of shooting with a camera phone and deciding digital cameras suck. SignatureJeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net Email address in header is valid > >> I shot one roll recently for the first time in a decade. Photo CD at > >> walgreens with kodak gold 200 was pretty crummy looking. Can anyone [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the film equivalent of shooting with a camera phone and deciding digital > cameras suck. Fair enough, I am always happy to look at flim scans, how about posting one? Scott > Fair enough, I am always happy to look at flim scans, how about > posting one? I don't have anything up at full resolution, but for example, this is a film scan: http://gallery.defocus.net/Nature-and-Landscape/Landscape/9228587_Dy5Xk/1/#77448 6557_XaN9A-A-LB Scanned from Kodachrome 64. I actually have a lot of film scans in the gallery, but a good number of them need to be replaced now that I've worked out how to get really good color out of my scans. That particular scan is an example of the best I can do so far. Reserving the right to get better at it, of course. :) SignatureJeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net Email address in header is valid I will now demonstrate what I consider to be the main advantage of using film over digital. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/73548875/original.jpg Nothing terribly impressive about that scan. It's a competent exposure with realistic colors. I probably could have tweaked it a bit and made it even better with a bit more time. But what is remarkable about that shot is that it was taken over 60 years ago, in 1948. I'd re-take that scene today, but that whole neighborhood is long gone. How will our digital pics look in 2070? > How will our digital pics look in 2070? They probably won't... Crashed HHDs, damaged media, heirs who won't bother spending days (weeks?) searching through old computers and CDs/DVDs and... Digital is definitely *not* shoot and forget as far as durability is concerned. > They probably won't... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Digital is definitely *not* shoot and forget as far as durability is > concerned. Unfortunately negs end up in the dump as well. Seriously, if I passed on, probably relatives would keep a few of the more important (to them) things. The rest would be flogged, or go in the dump. Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > > They probably won't... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > probably relatives would keep a few of the more important (to them) things. > The rest would be flogged, or go in the dump. They do indeed end up in the dump. I believe that in 20 years time negatives will be close to worthless for passing down family photos. I have a my grandmother’s slides from the 60s and my fathers negatives from the 50s. It is a pain in the a.s working with the slides and a huge pain in the a.s working with the negatives. And I have a film scanner, so I can do the scanning here. I rather doubt that I will have a working film scanner 20 years from now, and I doubt many people have either a working scanner or slide projector now. Imagine you have a box full of negatives and you have no good way to view them, who is going to take the effort to sent them off to be printed? As it is as I scan my dad’s negatives 9 time out of ten I have no clue who the people are in the photo. The negatives need a good washing before scanning and even then they are pretty dirty. There is no way I am going to be able to view all that he shot on film. Here is a photo of my dad’s from the very early 50s http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4326144419/sizes/l/ It took a lot of work to scan that photo and in the end I don’t know those people, or at least I don’t believe I do. Here is one my parents took last year http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4326164767/sizes/l/in/set-721576232061 69185/ I grabbed all 8,000 or so photos with on copy command. And here is one of my parents photos taken close to 10 years ago http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4326905136/sizes/l/in/set-721576232061 69185/ No fading no dust no dirt and my copy is as good as theirs and any copy I make will be just as good as well. As I have said before, I would much rather get photos in digital format, getting a bunch of film is not nearly as good. Scott >>> They probably won't... >> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Scott Agreed scanning and saving some of those family shots can be tedious. Here is my grandfather and my father in 1944, home on leave from Leyte. http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/GWO+HRO.jpg My father with my three uncles, my grandfather and great uncle circa 1935. http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/GWRGCCH.jpg My father circa 1929. http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Howard-7.jpg SignatureRegards, Savageduck > I believe that in 20 years time negatives will be close to worthless > for passing down family photos. I'll still keep all I have around though.. One problem I have.. I started scanning a lot of family pictures a few years ago, and had smaller HD's, etc. So I didn't usually keep large scans unless it was one I wanted to repair. Repairing old B&W pictures was a hobby I got into a few years ago. I do it almost totally by hand using cut and paste.. Anyway... I'm getting to the point I wouldn't mind rescanning a lot of them to have higher res archives.. So that means I'd have to start all over again.. :( It never ends... Same way with video.. I've recorded 100's of movies in the older SD formats, but now I'm HD and have been re-recording a lot of them. :/ But even digital is not foolproof as far as safety. Disk errors, migration, etc ad nausium. So I keep multiple copies. I'm running four HD's right now.. All of them bootable with the OS on them.. These are a few samples of repair jobs I've done in the past. I did most of these around 2003.. And yep, a couple still could use a few tweaks here and there, but they are much improved over the originals. Some of the bad ones you almost never get done with if you are picky.. :/ One of my aunts taken in 1929. Original.. http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/a22.jpg repaired.. http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/a8.jpg An Uncle in WW1 Original.. http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/ww1.jpg repaired.. http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/ww1-4.jpg An aunt when she was young. Original.. http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/n53or.jpg repaired.. http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/n53-2.jpg My grandmother "fathers side" and a friend.. Original.. http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/n54or.jpg repaired.. http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/n54-222.jpg One of my grandfather "mothers side" and a bunch of other bus drivers. He was on the school board back then in rural OK, and also ran the school bus program I think. He's the one sitting in the middle of the wood walkway. Also this one I cropped in a bit.. Cut a few unneeded buses, and get a bit closer.. This pix took a while.. Original.. http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/okori.jpg repaired.. http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/pixsmall.jpg I need to start working on a few more, but I get lazy.. It's pretty tedious doing those the way I do it.. I don't use photoshop, etc.. Only a paint program as far as the repair. :/ >>> They probably won't... >>> Crashed HHDs, damaged media, heirs who won't bother spending days >>> (weeks?) searching through old computers and CDs/DVDs and... >>> Digital is definitely *not* shoot and forget as far as durability is >>> concerned. > I believe that in 20 years time negatives will be close to worthless > for passing down family photos. I have a my grandmother’s slides from [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > from now, and I doubt many people have either a working scanner or > slide projector now. I have many family photos from around 1900 on. All the B&W negatives seem to be in perfect shape and the colour ones give good results. Some slide have faded, but that is almost always at least partly recovered by the scanning software or similar. I think most people will have some type of scanner capable of scanning negatives, even in the distant future. Dream on... > Imagine you have a box full of negatives and you have no good way to > view them, who is going to take the effort to sent them off to be > printed? You know, negatives can be "looked at" to see more or less what the subject is and if it might be worth scanning/printing. Try doing that with a long-obsolete (and possibly defective) digital medium! > As it is as I scan my dad’s negatives 9 time out of ten I > have no clue who the people are in the photo. The negatives need a > good washing before scanning and even then they are pretty dirty. In your "sales pitch" you conveniently ignore technologies such as digital ICE, which can eliminate most dirt & scratches. > It took a lot of work to scan that photo and in the end I don’t know > those people, or at least I don’t believe I do. Yes, definitely the fault of film.... > No fading no dust no dirt and my copy is as good as theirs and any > copy I make will be just as good as well. And for ever az the quality level of the camera it was taken with (1.5 megapix? Phone camera?). Again, digital ICE eliminates dust, dirt & scratches. Various types of software restore colours very well. You never did answer the question of whether you have an economic interest/stake in digital. That would explain your constant "sales pitches"... On 2/2/2010 10:17 PM Christopher Loffredo spake thus: [regarding Scott W.'s constant pushing of digital photography] > You never did answer the question of whether you have an economic > interest/stake in digital. That would explain your constant "sales > pitches"... Indeed. Funny thing; if digital is so all-fired good, why does he feel compelled to defend it at every opportunity? Sounds a bit defensive to me. To hear others here tell it, digital is implicitly so much better than film that it's not even worth discussing it. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > I rather doubt that I will have a working film scanner 20 years > from now, and I doubt many people have either a working scanner or > slide projector now. 35mm camera lenses work for projecting. You just need a bright light and a fast wide lens and/or dark room. 35mm f/1.4 works nice. > > I rather doubt that I will have a working film scanner 20 years > > from now, and I doubt many people have either a working scanner or > > slide projector now. > > 35mm camera lenses work for projecting. You just need a bright light and > a fast wide lens and/or dark room. 35mm f/1.4 works nice. What percentage of people have 35mm lenses now and how many will have them 20 years from now? But even if they have a 35mm lens how many people would bother to set up their own home made projector? When getting photos from a relative I think most people are happy to look through a book of prints. Most of the people I know would rather get the photos as jpegs and almost all the photos I get now are in fact jpegs. Some people would be willing to go through slides, I have gone through a fair number of my grandmother’s, but as time going on less and less people have the equipment to view them. Sure you can hold them up to the light but that is not a very satisfying way to view them. The worst are negatives, my dad shot a fair amount of MF format before switching to 35mm. My scanner at one time had a working top light and I could scan the 645 negatives, but not the 6x7 ones. I am not going to get a new scanner just to be able to scan his negatives, so the MF ones are pretty much worthless to me or anyone else in the family. Scott On 2/3/2010 8:09 AM Scott W spake thus: >>> I rather doubt that I will have a working film scanner 20 years >>> from now, and I doubt many people have either a working scanner or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > them 20 years from now? But even if they have a 35mm lens how many > people would bother to set up their own home made projector? If one really wants an answer to this question, all one needs to do is to look at auctions of 35mm equipment on eBay, as I've been doing lately. The answer to "how many?" is tens of thousands, perhaps. Lots, in other words. And again with the lazy-a.s excuses which, as someone else pointed out, *must* be the fault of film ("Oh, it's such a hassle to _________"). SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > On 2/3/2010 8:09 AM Scott W spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > lately. The answer to "how many?" is tens of thousands, perhaps. Lots, > in other words. On the other hand it also means there are tens of thousands of people dumping their slide projectors. And how many people who are dumping their projectors are just taking them to the dump? A quick look at ebay and I see a number of projectors with just minutes left and no bets. BTW I did see a MF projector with the current bid at $18.27 could be a good buy for someone with MF slides, all I have are MF negatives so it does me no good. Scott On Feb 3, 9:47 am, David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote: > On 2/3/2010 8:09 AM Scott W spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > lately. The answer to "how many?" is tens of thousands, perhaps. Lots, > in other words. On the other hand it also means there are tens of thousands of people dumping their slide projectors. And how many people who are dumping their projectors are just taking them to the dump? A quick look at ebay and I see a number of projectors with just minutes left and no bets. BTW I did see a MF projector with the current bid at $18.27 could be a good buy for someone with MF slides, all I have are MF negatives so it does me no good. I wish I had some MF slides and projector. I've heard they're awesome projected. Digital is fine for instant gratification and ease of retouching, but doesn't compare to a projected well exposed slide. IMHO. Tim Conway wrote,on my timestamp of 4/02/2010 7:19 AM: > I wish I had some MF slides and projector. I've heard they're awesome > projected. Digital is fine for instant gratification and ease of > retouching, but doesn't compare to a projected well exposed slide. IMHO. MF slides are simply magnificent. Most of the good MF projectors are still very expensive, even in ebay. Of course Scott always finds the cheap ones: the clunkers with manual operation and a heavy external transformer that no one in his right mind has used in 50 years. But to him that is as actual and "normal" as anything else film... That is why quite frankly his opinions and statements on film should simply be ignored. As well as others here, namely Alan Browne, another of the film "experts" who shoots 3 images per year on film... On 2/8/2010 3:24 AM Noons spake thus: > Tim Conway wrote,on my timestamp of 4/02/2010 7:19 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > his right mind has used in 50 years. But to him that is as actual and "normal" > as anything else film... Do you consider "super slides" (4x4 exposures on 127 film) to be MF? I ask because I have a 127 camera sitting with me here, except that it has the usual 3x4 format. Still significantly larger than 35mm ... SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" Yes, I still use only film. Do I feel sort of stupid when my family gets together and we look at the recent pictures we have taken? Yes. I bring out a photo album with pictures that are 4X6 inches and only my best shots are in the album. They however hand me their camera and I have to push a little button and scan through 300 shots, most of which should have been deleted. But hey, they are so cute on that 1X1 inch screen. I hope some day I can get rid of my Mamiya RB67 Pro S's and my Minolta X-700's and get one of those cute little cameras that are the size of a cigarette lighter. Then I will be so cool. Ric. > Yes, I still use only film. Do I feel sort of stupid when my family gets > together and we look at the recent pictures we have taken? Yes. I bring out [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > those cute little cameras that are the size of a cigarette lighter. Then I > will be so cool. Ric. You are lucky that you are offered a small P&S with a 1 inch screen to look at. I am usually offered a cell phone with a picture that is completely unidentifiable. It is usually the really cheap cell phone that cost $50 with the new contract and came with a $40 rebate. And if I try to move on to the next picture I run a high risk of accidentally calling Honduras. Like you, I will hang onto my film cameras (in my case a Pentax 6x7, a fully manual Nikon F, and an Olympus OM system (OM2, OM10) for when I want "automatic" exposures (for that read Aperture priority or Shutter priority through the lens metering as opposed to my incident light meter that I use for the Pentax and Nikon). What I DO need is a NIKON Coolscan 9000. They are so unavailable that the ebay prices are now higher than the new store prices. SignatureMichael > that I use for the Pentax and Nikon). What I DO need is a NIKON Coolscan > 9000. They are so unavailable that the ebay prices are now higher than > the new store prices. I wouldn't sell my 9000 for anywhere near the prices I was offered for it when I was considering selling it. For that matter my Hassy kit is off the market as well. I figure used backs will be affordable at some point in the not too distant future. There is a reality gap that goes: "But I could have it new for only $100 more!" "Yes, but you're not including taxes AND you get a $250 A-N transport with mine." "But it's not 'new'" "Well, how 'old' do you think a scanner gets sitting on 1 spot for 2 years and scanning less than 200 frames in that time?" "But, but, ... Well, I'll buy it new in that case!" "Go ahead." Then a few months later they're back and the whole rigmarole begins anew. BTW: It's in stock at Vistek (Ottawa) for CAD$2729 which is nutz considering the US/CAD $ rate. But if you order it there, the warranty may not be valid in the US. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. > Do you consider "super slides" (4x4 exposures on 127 film) to be MF? I > ask because I have a 127 camera sitting with me here, except that it has > the usual 3x4 format. > > Still significantly larger than 35mm ... I have no experience whatsoever of 127 film, sorry. I suppose if they are larger than 35, there is every possibility they'll look great as well. 35mm slides look great in a light table or projected, otherwise... > The worst are negatives, my dad shot a fair amount of MF format before > switching to 35mm. My scanner at one time had a working top light and > I could scan the 645 negatives, but not the 6x7 ones. I am not going > to get a new scanner just to be able to scan his negatives, so the MF > ones are pretty much worthless to me or anyone else in the family. You happen to have the equipment necessary to view the digital pictures you're getting. Now imagine that digital had become viable much earlier, and you found yourself in possession of a bunch of old family pictures -- on a Syquest cartridge, or an Apple ][ floppy disk, or a reel-to-reel data tape. Or even a SCSI hard drive. SignatureJeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net Email address in header is valid > > The worst are negatives, my dad shot a fair amount of MF format before > > switching to 35mm. My scanner at one time had a working top light and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > on a Syquest cartridge, or an Apple ][ floppy disk, or a reel-to-reel > data tape. Or even a SCSI hard drive. Or how about a zip drive, my parents use to keep their photos on those 250 MB zip drive, back in that day when that was a lot of storage. Of course they moved those photos to both hard drives and CDs years ago, and of course I have been grabing copies for years, so at least for me no problem. That is one of the cool thing about digital photograph, you don't have to wait for someone to die before you can all get copies of their photos. Scott >snip > Scott W <biph...@hotmail.com> wrote: snip >course they moved those photos to both hard drives and CDs years ago, >and of course I have been grabing copies for years, so at least for me [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Scott The whole reason I got into 35 mm photography initially was so that I could make copies of old photos. (Couldn't do macro with a Kodak Ektra 1 110 camera.) Didn't have to wait for anyone to die, just had to wait to get the film developed. Of course, it's easier with digital. >> snip >> Scott W<biph...@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Of course, it's easier with digital. The way I copied my old slides was to rent a slide projector and photograph the screen with digital. It was good enough for web use. I scanned prints from mom's collection with an ordinary flatbed scanner and grabbed some others from aunts & uncles by just snapping a digital shot from their wall. > >> On Feb 3, 11:40 am, Jeremy Nixon<~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> wrote: > >> snip [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > and grabbed some others from aunts & uncles by just snapping a digital > shot from their wall I am still looking for a good way to copy prints. Over the last 25 my wife and I have been sent a lot of prints from friends and relatives, it is now a pretty big box of print and I would really like then as image files. I have scanned some of them, less then 1%, with my flat bed. I tend to scan both the front and back to get whatever writing is on the back, below is an example. http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4329604148/sizes/l/in/set-721576232229 86519/ Two things that I have found out, most prints that people have sent us are really poor and two it take way too long to scan prints. I have used the digital camera to photograph some prints, and this is likely to be how I go in the future. I have also photographed a slide projector, but like the results from a film scanner a lot more. But I like getting the photos in digital format much more, I have a friend who is working at Arecibo, he sent me a CD with 227 photos on it. Some of the photos are very good, the dish in fog is a great photo IMO. If he had sent prints it would have been far fewer photos and the quality would have been a fraction of the digital images. IMO capturing old images from print, negatives and slides is very important, but please don’t send me any more slides or prints. Scott >> >> On Feb 3, 11:40 am, Jeremy Nixon<~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> wrote: >> >> snip [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4329604148/sizes/l/in/set-721576232229 86519/ When I scan old family prints, I add text to the image that covers what is written on the back. It doesn't take any longer than scanning twice, and there are many free programs that add text to an image. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>> snip >>>>> Scott W<biph...@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > what is written on the back. It doesn't take any longer than scanning > twice, and there are many free programs that add text to an image. The slide projector option was crappy but easy and I got the gist of the images just fine. For the family photo prints scanned, the important thing was going through the box with mom & getting her to comment on who was in the pic and approx date. We wrote that on the back then & borrowed them to scan & named the files with date and names. I spent a lot of time fixing old abused prints at 300dpi from smallish prints. > >> >> On Feb 3, 11:40 am, Jeremy Nixon<~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> wrote: > >> >> snip [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > what is written on the back. It doesn't take any longer than scanning > twice, and there are many free programs that add text to an image. Not a bad way to go, but I can do a number of photos at one time like this. http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4330983754/sizes/l/in/set-721576232229 86519/ I scan the photo size at 300 ppi and the back size at 150ppi then combine them. The back side scan goes fairly fast. But even so this goes slower then I would like, so I am going to switch to shooting the photos with my DSLR which looks like this http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4330983754/sizes/l/in/set-721576232229 86519/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4331039790/sizes/l/in/set-721576232229 86519/ Now I am getting 28 photos at once, these photo go into a small zip lock back that has the number of the group photos. This way if I find a photo that I want to look at the actual photo it is pretty fast to find. Of course I have only done this one group so far. These discussions are good in that they get me back to working on this stuff which otherwise would slip for a few more years. Scott >> >> >> On Feb 3, 11:40 am, Jeremy Nixon<~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> wrote: >> >> >> snip [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >combine them. >The back side scan goes fairly fast. Yeah, I can do the same. I fill my scanner bed with as many pix as will fit, and then open them in Adobe Elements>divide scanned photos and this produces separate images. I'll crop, straighten, and do some minor tweaks in Elements, and then add the text. If the photo requires more than Elements can correct, I'll open the file in Adobe CS4 and work on it. Sometimes I'll run it through Noiseware. The advantage of the text-on-picture is that it makes it nicer for the viewer to see the people and know who they are. The advantage of your way is that the viewer sees the original notes in the original handwriting. "Chacun à son goût", he said with a shrug. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida I believe that in 20 years time negatives will be close to worthless for passing down family photos. I have a my grandmother’s slides from the 60s and my fathers negatives from the 50s. It is a pain in the a.s working with the slides and a huge pain in the a.s working with the negatives. And I have a film scanner, so I can do the scanning here. I rather doubt that I will have a working film scanner 20 years from now, and I doubt many people have either a working scanner or slide projector now. Imagine you have a box full of negatives and you have no good way to view them, who is going to take the effort to sent them off to be printed? As it is as I scan my dad’s negatives 9 time out of ten I have no clue who the people are in the photo. The negatives need a good washing before scanning and even then they are pretty dirty. There is no way I am going to be able to view all that he shot on film. snip ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But you can hold a negative or slide up to the light to get the gist of the subject matter and make a decision as to whether to scan it or not. On the other hand, try making that decision about the photos that I have stored on 5" floppies. Twenty years from now, will you be able to view the images burned on a CDROM? I feel certain I'll be able to view the images on my properly-stored negatives. Might need new reading glasses, but... Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 3/02/2010 1:11 PM: > here. I rather doubt that I will have a working film scanner 20 years > from now, and I doubt many people have either a working scanner or > slide projector now. and why is that a problem for film users? > As I have said before, I would much rather get photos in digital > format, getting a bunch of film is not nearly as good. Good. Keep using digital. But stop telling others what they should use or not: you are simply not qualified to do so. >I will now demonstrate what I consider to be the main advantage of > using film over digital. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > How will our digital pics look in 2070? The neighborhoods will be long gone? > I will now demonstrate what I consider to be the main advantage of > using film over digital. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > How will our digital pics look in 2070? They will *all* be flawlessly archived online for a fraction of a penny and accessible through our 180-degree VR implants at the flick of a finger. :-) Pixel-peeper's heaven... > > Fair enough, I am always happy to look at flim scans, how about > > posting one? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > scan is an example of the best I can do so far. Reserving the right to > get better at it, of course. :) Nice shot, I am trying to understand what you find film does better then digital, is it the colors? You say you have worked out how to get really good color out of your scans, did you give the same effort to getting good color out of your digital shots? BTW this is one of my scans, I believe that was Kodachrome http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4309159530/sizes/o/in/set-721576232852 64902/ When viewed at that size it would be hard to tell that scan from a digital shot, but viewed closer and I see the noise in the scan that drives me nuts. I could spend a lot of time with a noise reducing program to try and clean up the scan, and for old photos where I have not choice I sometimes do. But at least for me I find it much easier to start with a clean image to start with. Scott > Nice shot, I am trying to understand what you find film does better > then digital, is it the colors? You know... I'm not even sure I *am* saying it's better. I am saying that I prefer it at the moment. One thing that it does is look the way I want without extensive fussing. Another thing it does is eliminate the "hand-held computer" between me and the pictures. I don't need a camera with more computing power than it took to send men to the moon, just to take some pictures. It just gets in the way. With digital I can shut off the matrix metering, and shut off the auto-review, and shut off all the other nonsense, and yet I *still* have this big computer in the way. Now, I'm a computer programmer in real life, so I know how to work with that stuff quite well. But that doesn't mean I want to work with it when there's no real need to. So another thing it does is make photography more enjoyable. > You say you have worked out how to get really good color out of your > scans, did you give the same effort to getting good color out of your > digital shots? Sure. I think I'm pretty good at it, too, and I certainly don't mean to say that digital sucks. It doesn't. > BTW this is one of my scans, I believe that was Kodachrome > http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4309159530/sizes/o/in/set-721576232852 64902/ [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > not choice I sometimes do. But at least for me I find it much easier > to start with a clean image to start with. That image, on my screen, is 9 inches by 6 inches, and looks great. How big are you going to print it? Is that noise, or is that grain? The grain is supposed to be there. It is part of the look, part of the texture. Sure, if you want to make a 30x20 print of a landscape, that's no good -- and sometimes I do want that, and then I use digital. (Though if I had medium format gear I might use that instead.) In other words, why the obsession with what the images look like at absurd magnification levels, unless you're actually going to be printing at that size? I guess some people find grain inherently objectionable, but I'm not one of them. Sometimes it's bad, other times it's not. Sometimes digital images look too sterile, too perfect. Kodachrome 64 can resolve more detail than my digital camera, but it can't produce images that are as clean. So what? It's basically a wash. When it's not appropriate you don't use it. That's another thing film can do: it lets me buy "full-frame sensors" by the roll from Kodak and use a different kind any time I want. When I need to shoot with digital, I'm stuck with what's in the camera, just because the manufacturers finally found a way to get us to buy a new camera every couple of years. SignatureJeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net Email address in header is valid > > Nice shot, I am trying to understand what you find film does better > > then digital, is it the colors? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > So another thing it does is make photography more enjoyable. I think my electric shaver has more computing power then what Apllo had, they really did not have much of a computer at all. A computer in the camera does not bother me at all, and I really don't find much differance between shooting with my film SLR and my DSLR. But if the computer in the camera is a bother to you and you enjoy shooting film, then there is no reason not to, well I would have a lot of reasons not you but you might not. > > You say you have worked out how to get really good color out of your > > scans, did you give the same effort to getting good color out of your [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > That image, on my screen, is 9 inches by 6 inches, and looks great. How > big are you going to print it? The image I posted is 1000 x 652 pixels, my monitor is 1920 pixels wide so at a bare minimum I want an image that is 1920 pixels wide to look super clean and super sharp. That image in fact does not do too bad at that size and it would make a good looking print up to around 8x12 inches, but below is a list of some of the reasons I would rather have captured that image using my digital. No time spent scanning the film. The date and time are saved with the digital image, for that slide scan I only know the year. I can run my iso up, which helps a lot with camera shake in many cases I don’t have to pay for the film and processing I don’t loose the detail in the shadows. I don’t have nearly the noise (grain) to deal with. I don’t have to worry about my film going through xray machines at airports. I don’t have to worry that the lab is going to use old chemicals and ruin my film (I have had this happen more then one. The first item, the time spent scanning film, would be enough all by itself, I have spent many hours scanning film and I still don’t have everything scanned that I want to. For me film would have to have noticeable better image quality for it to be worth the work to use it. At this point in time I am getting better image quality from my digital camera then I ever did from my film camera, so at least for me there is really no reason to shoot film. > Is that noise, or is that grain? The grain is supposed to be there. It > is part of the look, part of the texture. Sure, if you want to make a > 30x20 print of a landscape, that's no good -- and sometimes I do want > that, and then I use digital. (Though if I had medium format gear I might > use that instead.) I know some people like the texture that grain gives, but I really only want to see textures that were in the scene. Scott In Message-ID:<3c810531-63f3-4918-a50c-d1298d0abb79@k18g2000prf.googlegroups.com> posted on Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:10:21 -0800 (PST), Scott W wrote: Begin >I know some people like the texture that grain gives, but I really >only want to see textures that were in the scene. Can't that mottled grainy effect be added in post processing, like the 'warmish' distortion of vinyl added to digital audio? > I don?t have to worry that the lab is going to use old chemicals and > ruin my film (I have had this happen more then one. And it'll only become more common as consumer demand plummets. I do it myself, except for Kodachrome of course, which will go away after this year anyway. > The first item, the time spent scanning film, would be enough all by > itself, I have spent many hours scanning film and I still don?t have > everything scanned that I want to. I don't find much difference here: time spent scanning is time I'd have spent doing raw post-processing. Once scanned it only takes a few minutes to finish off the image. The very real problem is dust and scratches. With Kodachrome, ICE only works sometimes, and with black-and-white, it doesn't work at all, so there's a lot of time spent cleaning up the damned scans. This is the worst thing about film, for me. Using C-41 it's a non-issue because of ICE or VueScan's IR cleaning. (Or E-6, but I don't really use that.) SignatureJeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net Email address in header is valid > > I don’t have to worry that the lab is going to use old chemicals and > > ruin my film (I have had this happen more then one. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > spent doing raw post-processing. Once scanned it only takes a few minutes > to finish off the image. It takes me a long time to scan my film, I am using a DiMage Scan Dual III. I could speed things up some if I did not focus on every frame, but even so it takes a fair bit of time. It can take a couple of hours to scan one roll of film. The same number of raw files would normally take only 5 minutes of my time. Scott Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 28/01/2010 12:39 AM: > drives me nuts. I could spend a lot of time with a noise reducing > program to try and clean up the scan, and for old photos where I have > not choice I sometimes do. Of course, one could claim you love hurting yourself. I do an entire 36 frame roll in around 5 minutes, enough for the kettle to boil and tea to open. Yeah, that is a "lot of time". Sure... > But at least for me I find it much easier > to start with a clean image to start with. Well, you better not use digital then. You know the Digic processor does noise cleaning as well for your "start" raw image, don't you? So does DPP. Come on: you *must* know that! Then again... Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 27/01/2010 2:12 PM: >> Seriously. Shooting Kodak Gold 200 and getting a CD from Walgreens is >> the film equivalent of shooting with a camera phone and deciding digital >> cameras suck. > > Fair enough, I am always happy to look at flim scans, how about > posting one? I do, regularly. But not in this crap newsgroup. >>> I shot one roll recently for the first time in a decade. Photo CD at >>> walgreens with kodak gold 200 was pretty crummy looking. Can anyone [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the film equivalent of shooting with a camera phone and deciding digital > cameras suck. Right. It was really awful. Easy first test though. So any ideas for slide film and developing? I'm assuming mail order would be the way to go or maybe there is a decent one walgreens could develop? SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam > So any ideas for slide film and developing? I'm assuming mail order would > be the way to go or maybe there is a decent one walgreens could develop? Is Oscar's Photo Lab still in business and reasonably close to you? I've never seen a Walgreen's which can develop anything but C41 on site, and the drop off in consumer business has caused a vicious downward spiral in quality at such outlets. Consumer demand has all but vanished. Fewer customers means stale chemicals and management apathy towards maintenance. That leads to even fewer customers, etc. SignatureMike Benveniste -- mhb@murkyether.com (Clarification Required) Don't succumb to the false authority of a tool or model. There is no substitute for thinking. >> So any ideas for slide film and developing? I'm assuming mail order would >> be the way to go or maybe there is a decent one walgreens could develop? > > Is Oscar's Photo Lab still in business and reasonably close to you? They are! http://www.oscarsphotolab.com/additional.htm $12 per roll (whatever size) to develop (and mount if you want) slide film with 24 hour turnaround. Also Photographer's Supply still exists! http://www.photosupply.com/browse.cfm/2,81.html -sell film but don't develop slides. And Calumet, and even Gasser is still around. Ah, OK Calumet says they'll develop & mount slides for $10/roll. They mail it out though, so it takes a week. If I lived in Atlanta GA $10/roll in 3 hours, $8.50 unmounted. http://www.e-sixlab.com/film.htm Hmm, this may be the best (free shipping) out of Denver: http://www.reedphoto.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59&Itemid=56 Sleeved Mounted 135/24 $7.60 $9.40 135/36 $8.05 $9.75 Or this one out of San Diego: http://chromedigital.com/e6.html > I've never seen a Walgreen's which can develop anything but C41 on > site, and the drop off in consumer business has caused a vicious > downward spiral in quality at such outlets. Consumer demand has > all but vanished. Fewer customers means stale chemicals and > management apathy towards maintenance. That leads to even fewer > customers, etc. The walgreens 2 blocks away seems to keep their bins fairly full, there were another dozen packets waiting to be picked up when I got mine developed. SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam > So any ideas for slide film and developing? I'm assuming mail order > would be the way to go or maybe there is a decent one walgreens could > develop? Walgreen's won't be able to develop any E-6. If you want to go that route you'd need to stick with C-41, which isn't necessarily a bad thing: Portra and Ektar are very good. Portra is easier. Get a roll of 160nc, meter off the shadows, and if in doubt, overexpose. With E-6, unless you're lucky enough to have a pro lab nearby that can do it, you'll be sending it off. The problem with good scans is that they are so expensive that buying a scanner starts to make sense after about the first roll of film. If you don't need the absolute best scans, it makes sense after only a few frames -- a flatbed scanner than can also do film isn't terribly expensive. It won't give you the best possible scans, but neither will Walgreen's. SignatureJeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net Email address in header is valid > So any ideas for slide film and developing? I'm assuming mail order would > be the way to go or maybe there is a decent one walgreens could develop? www.chromedigital.com in San Diego. See if they mail order. dont let the "digital" moniker sway you, they are a pro shop for E6, medium format, 35mm, black and white, etc, beautiful prints. Most of the film shooters I know of recommend Chrome in San Diego. >> So any ideas for slide film and developing? I'm assuming mail order >> would be the way to go or maybe there is a decent one walgreens could [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 35mm, black and white, etc, beautiful prints. Most of the film shooters > I know of recommend Chrome in San Diego. Thanks! Bruce wrote,on my timestamp of 27/01/2010 10:06 AM: > I can recommend that you don't use Kodak Gold 200. Bingo. > I have a feeling that the people who think that digital gives far > better results than film only ever used low quality films such as > Kodak Gold 200. And indeed that is the sad story of all these "film experts" who "moved to digital"... > I've got four dSLRs, but I miss shooting film, so come Christmas, my mom > wanted me to take pictures so I dusted off my old ElanII, 28-105 lens, and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Patrick I am 100% committed to film. I buy film in 25 or 50 roll packs, and color printing paper in rolls of (about) 200 or 600 feet, depending on the width. I have a well-equipted color darkroom, capable of printing up to 20" wide prints. As for your results at the local drugstore, I think you got lucky! Many times, the person running the machine at the one-hour photo place (whether it's CVS, Walgreens, WalMart, etc), is a part-timer, who last week was working the checkout register. If you find a one-hour store with very low employee turnover, and a processing machine that gets regular factory maintenance, stick with them! (The automated one-hour machines want to see a certain mixture of colors and densitites. I suspect your holiday snaps probably were within the normal limits. If you had taken a picture of a black cat in the middle of a snow-covered field on a sunny day, or a yellow pear in front of a red barn, your results would probably have been less than stellar.) I've worked with digital photographers, and at the end of the day, the digital shooter might have shot ten times the number of frames as I did on film, but the total number of "keepers" is nearly the same. If people 'grow up' on film shooting, they are used to making sure the shot is going to be good before tripping the shutter. A digital shooter can just keep firing, hoping that one of the frames will be good. On 1/25/2010 3:46 PM K W Hart spake thus: > As for your results at the local drugstore, I think you got lucky! > Many times, the person running the machine at the one-hour photo > place (whether it's CVS, Walgreens, WalMart, etc), is a part-timer, > who last week was working the checkout register. If you find a > one-hour store with very low employee turnover, and a processing > machine that gets regular factory maintenance, stick with them! Here's my saga: up until last year I had just such a lucky combination; the local Longs store had a photo staff that really knew what they were doing and actually paid attention to the printing process, and I consistently got very good results from them on their Frontier. (And they were cheap.) Then CVS took over Longs. I tried them out; the first roll I had processed there, they didn't even print all the exposures (and gave me doubles of some others). And the results were uniformly shitty. (They now use a Kodak system.) So I tried another roll at Walgreens. The results were even shittier, at least part of which seemed to be due to the system they use (forget the name of it). Then I started looking around for local (i.e., non-drug-chain) processors. Ended up with one in downtown Berkeley that makes *optical* prints (my preference) on a Noritsu processor that are truly spectacular. The moral of the story is: find a small, dedicated, conscientious photo lab. It's worth it. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" Ended up with one in downtown Berkeley ........ That explains a lot.......... On 1/26/2010 1:10 AM Bill Graham spake thus: >> Ended up with one in downtown Berkeley ........ > > That explains a lot.......... Just *what* does that explain, pray tell? [another badly attributed post from the genius Graham] SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > On 1/26/2010 1:10 AM Bill Graham spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Just *what* does that explain, pray tell? Well, I should have known that you were from the Peoples Republic of Bezerkeley. Having lived there once myself, I should have recognized the attitude. I lived on Amador Street back in the 50's, while I was attending U of California. But I escaped before they were able to poison my mind......some of us are just luckier than others, I guess.....:^) On 1/26/2010 12:58 PM Bill Graham spake thus: >> On 1/26/2010 1:10 AM Bill Graham spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Bezerkeley. Having lived there once myself, I should have recognized the > attitude. I lived on Amador Street back in the 50's, So you lived on the Northside. Pretty pricey neighborhood nowadays. > while I was attending U of California. But I escaped before they were > able to poison my mind......some of us are just luckier than others, > I guess.....:^) I don't live in Berkeley; I live in Oakland. Besides, Bezerkeley ain't what it was in the 60s, not by a long shot. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > On 1/26/2010 12:58 PM Bill Graham spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Besides, Bezerkeley ain't what it was in the 60s, not by a long shot. I guess not.....If you went to a photo shop in Berkeley, it may have been Norman Photo......I used to work there when I was at Cal. Back then, it was owned by Jack Jenkins......He flew the hump into China back in the "Big War". On 1/26/2010 4:14 PM Bill Graham spake thus: >> Besides, Bezerkeley ain't what it was in the 60s, not by a long shot. > > I guess not.....If you went to a photo shop in Berkeley, it may have been > Norman Photo......I used to work there when I was at Cal. Back then, it was > owned by Jack Jenkins......He flew the hump into China back in the "Big > War". That shop is long gone, alas. I like old shops that have been there forever. Businesses like that are very rare in Berkeley, as they are increasingly everywhere. The lab I went to is owned by a Persian (Iranian) guy who's a professional photog, does passport photos in addition to photofinishing. Very conscientious and competent. You probably wouldn't recognize Berkeley today on account of all the Indian and Persian and Ethiopian restaurants and businesses. The only photo store you might remember from your days at Cal is Sarber's, which is still on Solano Ave. My favorite photo store in the whole wide world is also on Berkeley: Looking Glass Photo on Telegraph, which I'm sure wasn't there when you were. But they send their photo processing out. I was looking for a local place that did their own work. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > On 1/26/2010 4:14 PM Bill Graham spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > were. But they send their photo processing out. I was looking for a local > place that did their own work. Sarbers wasn't there back in the middle 50's when I was still living in Berkeley. Their on line ad says they started up in 1961, and I left Berkeley in 1956 to join the Navy. (I wasn't doing well in school) I was lucky, because I did my military stint in between wars, and never had a shot fired at me in anger......(Probably why I am such a "hawk" now.....:^) > I've worked with digital photographers, and at the end of the day, the > digital shooter might have shot ten times the number of frames as I did on > film, but the total number of "keepers" is nearly the same. If people 'grow > up' on film shooting, they are used to making sure the shot is going to be > good before tripping the shutter. A digital shooter can just keep firing, > hoping that one of the frames will be good I learned on film in high school shooting BW. The work flow then was to make a contact sheet and pick out which frames we would make an enlargement of. BW film was very cheap and so we were encouraged to take a lot of shots and only make one or two prints from a roll of film. But we did not then, nor do I now “just keep firing, hoping that one of the frames will be good” I have been sorting through my photograph, both film and digital, going back over 25 years, I don’t see that my film shots have a higher ratio of keepers then my digital shots. The only time that I took far more shots then I really needed to was in fact using film, at the Albuquerque Balloon Fiesta, for some reason that event gets every one shooting far more then they really should, even back in the days of film. > I've worked with digital photographers, and at the end of the day, the > digital shooter might have shot ten times the number of frames as I did on > film, but the total number of "keepers" is nearly the same. If people 'grow > up' on film shooting, they are used to making sure the shot is going to be > good before tripping the shutter. A digital shooter can just keep firing, > hoping that one of the frames will be good. This assumes the digital photographer knows little about photography. If the same photographer shoots both digital and film, with digital he'll shoot 10x the number of pics and end up with 10x the number of keepers. In fact, I'd say he'd end up with an even higher percentage of keepers since he'll be able to get instant feedback on any adjustments that need to be made, and he'll be able to try various techniques/angles, etc. with digital. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 26/01/2010 2:58 PM: > This assumes the digital photographer knows little about photography. And that is mostly the case nowadays. But they all discuss number of angels on a pixel in the online forums as if they knew lots about it. The same ones whose photos are never visible... > If the same photographer shoots both digital and film, with digital > he'll shoot 10x the number of pics and end up with 10x the number of > keepers. Er, no. Same number of keepers, a lot more shooting. Film shooters take good care to make sure each image is a keeper. Not always the case, but a good thing to aim for. With digital, folks basically merrily shoot away. Some are smart and attentive enough to check the histos and make sure what they got is minimally usable. Others just photoshop the heck out of whatever they got and fabricate their images. Different strokes. In fact, I'd say he'd end up with an even higher percentage > of keepers since he'll be able to get instant feedback on any > adjustments that need to be made, and he'll be able to try various > techniques/angles, etc. with digital. Well, if he's trying out techniques and angles, presumably those won't be keepers? The trials, I mean. Therefore the ratio won't be 10 times more shooting, 10 times more keepers... Or else maths are really strange today? > > If the same photographer shoots both digital and film, with digital > > he'll shoot 10x the number of pics and end up with 10x the number of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > care to make sure each image is a keeper. Not always the case, but a good thing > to aim for. That makes no sense. Any given photographer will get a certain percentage of keepers. So it follows that by shooting 10x more exposures he'll get a helluva lot more keepers than if he was shooting film. Let's say you shoot a 36-exposure roll of film and come back with 10 keepers. It defies logic to suggest that if you shot 360 exposures you'd still only get 10 keepers. True, you might not get 100 keepers because some of your digital exposures might have been experimental in nature. But having the digital tools and feedback available to you should help you get more keepers. Also, you can really do lots of bracketing for free. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 27/01/2010 4:16 PM: >>> If the same photographer shoots both digital and film, with digital >>> he'll shoot 10x the number of pics and end up with 10x the number of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That makes no sense. Any given photographer will get a certain > percentage of keepers. What makes no sense is your claim that one takes 10X more photos with digital therefore one ends up with 10X more keepers. Precisely for the reason you just put forward. > So it follows that by shooting 10x more exposures he'll get a helluva > lot more keepers than if he was shooting film. Yes but not 10X more, like *you* claimed. Don't let the voices delude you: it's written right at the top, by *you*. All you have to do is re-read. You can manage re-reading, can't you? Think of it as bracketing and checking exposure. > Let's say you shoot a 36-exposure roll of film and come back with 10 > keepers. It defies logic to suggest that if you shot 360 exposures > you'd still only get 10 keepers. True, you might not get 100 keepers > because some of your digital exposures might have been experimental in > nature. I am not making claims about keepers in film. I am making this simple claim: your statement above that with digital one shoots 10X more and ends up with 10X more keepers is complete bollocks. > But having the digital tools and feedback available to you should help > you get more keepers. Of course. But not 10X more when I take 10X more photos. Capice? > Also, you can really do lots of bracketing for free. Absolutely. 100% in agreement. Exactly what the heck has that got to do with what you claimed? > Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 27/01/2010 4:16 PM: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Yes but not 10X more, like *you* claimed. Don't let the voices delude you: Wait a minute. You said that he would get the same number of keepers, which you now acknowledge to be a false statement. Obviously, he will get more keepers with more exposures. You also stated, "Film shooters take good care to make sure each image is a keeper." So if this film shooter is shooting digital, why wouldn't he take the same care? If he does, he'll get the same ratio of keepers. But whatever the amount of keepers he gets shooting digital, we both agree that it will be lots more than with film ..... and that's the point. If you want to argue whether that number is 10x or 5x, knock yourself out. But we know it isn't the same, as you claimed earlier. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 28/01/2010 1:55 AM: > Wait a minute. You said that he would get the same number of keepers, no, I did not. > which you now acknowledge to be a false statement. Obviously, he will > get more keepers with more exposures. But not "10X more because he shoots 10X more", as you claimed. > You also stated, "Film shooters take good care to make sure each image > is a keeper." > So if this film shooter is shooting digital, why wouldn't he take the > same care? Because he is not shooting film? D'oh?????? > If he does, he'll get the same ratio of keepers. And no one does. That is precisely the point you stated: one experiments more with digital, hence the ratio of shooting to keepers is much higher. Never 1:1, which is what you claimed with "shooting 10X more, 10X more keepers". > But whatever the amount of keepers he gets shooting digital, we both > agree that it will be lots more than with film ..... Of course! > and that's the > point. Er, no. That was not the point. You implied that folks shoot 10X more with digital, therefore they get 10X more keepers. As if that was a "quality" of digital. Which is bollocks. > But we know it isn't the same, as you claimed earlier. I never claimed that. *You* are the one claiming 10X more shots is the same as 10X more keepers. It isn't, it never was, it never will be. > I've got four dSLRs, but I miss shooting film, so come Christmas, my mom > wanted me to take pictures so I dusted off my old ElanII, 28-105 lens, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > family. The "white balance" ( as we now call it in the digital world ) was > stunning. You had much better luck at a drugstore then I ever did, the white balance was often way off. Some of the time the prints were not expose close to correctly and the prints were very blurry, even when printed as small as 4x6 inches. The solution for me was to start scanning my film, which improved the results to acceptable in most cases, but some of the film was pretty much ruined by old developer. I don’t shoot film any more, but I am still scanning 20 some years of shooting film, in fact I was just scanning some yesterday that was shot around 1993 to 94. http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4305541686/sizes/o/ It is nice that film shot then can be scanned now, although I have a fair bit of film that has faded to the point it can’t really be scanned. What is even nicer, IMO, is that I don’t have to scan the shots I take today. Scott > It is nice that film shot then can be scanned now, although I have a > fair bit of film that has faded to the point it can’t really be > scanned. > > What is even nicer, IMO, is that I don’t have to scan the shots I take > today. My film experiences of late echo Scott's. When I do shoot the occasional roll of print film it rarely comes back from the developer looking anywhere near what is supposed to. Sometimes it's because I've let the film get too hot in my car, but even with proper care most of these drugstores/camera shops screw up the colors. Everything will either have a Magenta tint or maybe a Cyan, depending on who's working that shift. My experiences with slides are much better. The slides usually come out looking the way they were shot. But now I have to scan them (a VERY tedious process with the Minolta SE 5400) to post them online or print pics from them. About once or twice a year I'll load them into slide trays and watch them on an old projector. I do worry that in 20 years only the slides will still be viewable while most of my digital pics are buried on old hard drives and unreadable DVDs. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 26/01/2010 3:06 PM: > I do worry that in 20 years only the slides will still be viewable > while most of my digital pics are buried on old hard drives and > unreadable DVDs. LOL! > My experiences with slides are much better. The slides usually come > out looking the way they were shot. But now I have to scan them (a > VERY tedious process with the Minolta SE 5400) I assure you that the Nikon scanner s/w and procedure is even more tedious than the Minolta 5400... Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. On Jan 26, 4:17 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > > My experiences with slides are much better. The slides usually come > > out looking the way they were shot. But now I have to scan them (a > > VERY tedious process with the Minolta SE 5400) > > I assure you that the Nikon scanner s/w and procedure is even more > tedious than the Minolta 5400... How can that be? Nothing is more tedious than hearing all those clanking noises as the Minolta fires up and cycles through it's endless machinations before anything ever happens. There is a way to do "Raw" batch scans with minimal processing at scan time, but I've never mastered it. Also, when you do that you are throwing away the ability to make micro-focus adjustments as well as basic color corrections. If I sit down with only one exposure to scan, I'm lucky if I can get it done in 15 minutes with the 5400, and that's if I just use a single pass. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 27/01/2010 4:40 PM: >> I assure you that the Nikon scanner s/w and procedure is even more >> tedious than the Minolta 5400... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ability to make micro-focus adjustments as well as basic color > corrections. You misjudge Alan's knowledge of anything other than Minolta. You see: in his mind if it's not Minolta, it *must* be useless. Never mind the company and its products have vanished ages ago: gotta be the best, it'll always be the best... > If I sit down with only one exposure to scan, I'm lucky if I can get > it done in 15 minutes with the 5400, and that's if I just use a single > pass. Dude, I consider it a bad night if I can't put 10 frames of 35mm through the VED in that amount of time! That's full 4000dpi, fine Ice and individual frame focusing. Don't get me started on how much faster it is with the 9000ED. > > If I sit down with only one exposure to scan, I'm lucky if I can get > > it done in 15 minutes with the 5400, and that's if I just use a single [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in that amount of time! That's full 4000dpi, fine Ice and individual frame > focusing. Don't get me started on how much faster it is with the 9000ED. Exactly my point. Nothing could be slower and more tedious than my Minolta. > How can that be? Nothing is more tedious than hearing all those > clanking noises as the Minolta fires up and cycles through it's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ability to make micro-focus adjustments as well as basic color > corrections. Google Vuescan. (If you're going to complain about film, at least learn how to do it right first...) > > How can that be? Nothing is more tedious than hearing all those > > clanking noises as the Minolta fires up and cycles through it's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (If you're going to complain about film, at least learn how to do it > right first...) I've got Vuescan. It doesn't change the mechanical characteristics of the scanner. The Minolta SE5400 is slow as crap no matter whether you use Vuescan, Silverfast, or Minolta's own software (I have all 3). >>> How can that be? Nothing is more tedious than hearing all those >>> clanking noises as the Minolta fires up and cycles through it's [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The Minolta SE5400 is slow as crap no matter whether you use Vuescan, > Silverfast, or Minolta's own software (I have all 3). I've had the Minolta Dimage 5400 (first version) for 7+ years now and have also used all three programs you mention (though Silverfast only breifly). Yes, it does take a realtively long time at 5400 dpi and 48bit coulour depth, but I only use those with the appropriate types of film. At 2700 DPI (normally used with 200+ ISO films), it's quite fast. I also use digital extensively, but I find that the film scan results are often very much worth the wait. More, faster, easier doesn't always mean better. >> How can that be? Nothing is more tedious than hearing all those >> clanking noises as the Minolta fires up and cycles through it's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (If you're going to complain about film, at least learn how to do it > right first...) I find the Minolta s/w better in most respects than Vuescan unless I'm having a specific problem with an image. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. > On Jan 26, 4:17 pm, Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > it done in 15 minutes with the 5400, and that's if I just use a single > pass. I could usually manage up to 12 per hour (single pass with ICE) once up and running on the 5400. So I could be editing files while it was scanning (though that could slow down the scan a bit when ICE was on. Can't compare well with the 9000 as that's MF, and takes more setup time, and aligning frames is painfully awkward with the stupid-stupid-stupid Nikon s/w. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 28/01/2010 9:20 AM: > Can't compare well with the 9000 as that's MF, and takes more setup > time, and aligning frames is painfully awkward with the > stupid-stupid-stupid Nikon s/w. I can't possibly stress more how false this is... >> On Jan 26, 4:17 pm, Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > and aligning frames is painfully awkward with the stupid-stupid-stupid > Nikon s/w. It sure makes sense to "scan" the original scene with a digital camera rather than scanning a slide or photograph with a desk scanner. Just eliminating the extra step makes sense. Just as you wouldn't copy a copy if there was some way you could use the original instead. I think that scanners were made for pictures that have already been taken before the advent of digital photography, so you have no choice if you want them digitized. but if the photo hasn't been taken yet, then the obvious choice is to take it with a digital camera. > It sure makes sense to "scan" the original scene with a digital camera > rather than scanning a slide or photograph with a desk scanner. Just [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > digitized. but if the photo hasn't been taken yet, then the obvious choice > is to take it with a digital camera. Absolutely. Use the gear that gets you to your final result in as few steps as possible. But if your end result is a high quality, long-lasting wall portrait, then an optical print from a film negative is the obvious choice. > > It sure makes sense to "scan" the original scene with a digital camera > > rather than scanning a slide or photograph with a desk scanner. Just [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > as possible. But if your end result is a high quality, long-lasting wall > portrait, then an optical print from a film negative is the obvious choice. Odd that if the choice was so obvious that the White House photographer is shooting with DSLRs. Scott On 1/29/2010 9:43 AM Scott W spake thus: >>> It sure makes sense to "scan" the original scene with a digital camera >>> rather than scanning a slide or photograph with a desk scanner. Just [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Odd that if the choice was so obvious that the White House > photographer is shooting with DSLRs. Not odd at all; they've simply drunk the "digital must be better" Kool-Aid. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > On 1/29/2010 9:43 AM Scott W spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Not odd at all; they've simply drunk the "digital must be better" Kool-Aid. Hmm, here is the bio for the photographer http://www.petesouza.com/content.html?page=3 I see he was an Official White House Photographer for President Reagan, I would guess he might have known a thing or two about using film to get that gig, don't ya think? Scott On 1/29/2010 12:39 PM Scott W spake thus: >> On 1/29/2010 9:43 AM Scott W spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Reagan, I would guess he might have known a thing or two about using > film to get that gig, don't ya think? Dunno; he still could have drunk the Kook-Aid. It also occurred to me, and this is a long shot, that there may be a political aspect to this: after all, the last thing the Obama administration (or any administration for that matter) would want would be to have it revealed that someone in their entourage is using--Horrors!--an antiquated technology. My god--the president must be a Luddite! [note post trimming] SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > Dunno; he still could have drunk the Kook-Aid. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > using--Horrors!--an antiquated technology. My god--the president must be > a Luddite! Or, just maybe, he finds that he is shooting with available light a lot and film really sucks when shooting with available light. Scott > On 1/29/2010 12:39 PM Scott W spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > to have it revealed that someone in their entourage is using--Horrors!--an > antiquated technology. My god--the president must be a Luddite! But this is one of the ingredients of the digital Kool Aid, isn't it? It's the, "Use the latest technology" flavoring....... On 1/29/2010 8:08 PM Bill Graham spake thus: >> On 1/29/2010 12:39 PM Scott W spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > But this is one of the ingredients of the digital Kool Aid, isn't it? It's > the, "Use the latest technology" flavoring....... You may be slow, but you eventually catch on. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > On 1/29/2010 8:08 PM Bill Graham spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > You may be slow, but you eventually catch on. On the other hand, it should be possible, with digital techniques, to copy any film's overall feeling, simply by performing the right "digital magic" on a pixel to pixel basis. Ultimately, digital photography will replace film altogether, and I doubt if there is anything we can do about it. > On 1/29/2010 9:43 AM Scott W spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not odd at all; they've simply drunk the "digital must be better" > Kool-Aid. Dude... he's the White House photographer. He's essentially doing photojournalism, shooting hundreds of images per day, which need to be edited and annotated and filed, released to the press, and printed and sent to people as quickly as possible. If I had his job, and I'd love to, I'd be using digital, too. I mean, you know, not with Canon gear, but still. :) SignatureJeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net Email address in header is valid Jeremy Nixon wrote,on my timestamp of 30/01/2010 11:42 AM: > I mean, you know, not with Canon gear, but still. :) Yeah, after all you'd need to have *some* images in focus! > Jeremy Nixon wrote,on my timestamp of 30/01/2010 11:42 AM: > > > I mean, you know, not with Canon gear, but still. :) > > Yeah, after all you'd need to have *some* images in focus! Sounds like Noons has been snorting the fixer again! Hey Noons, why not point out a few of Souza's digital images that are out of focus? Or even mine? Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 31/01/2010 12:23 PM: >> Jeremy Nixon wrote,on my timestamp of 30/01/2010 11:42 AM: >> >>> I mean, you know, not with Canon gear, but still. :) >> Yeah, after all you'd need to have *some* images in focus! > > Sounds like Noons has been snorting the fixer again! I don't snort. That's an invention from your country. > Hey Noons, why not point out a few of Souza's digital images that are > out of focus? Canon's images. Not Souza's images. See if you capice: Canon's AF and its lenses focus point are ratshit. Every pro knows it. > Or even mine? Which ones? The ones where you cut subjects and paste backgrounds? > > Hey Noons, why not point out a few of Souza's digital images that are > > out of focus? > > Canon's images. Not Souza's images. See if you capice: > Canon's AF and its lenses focus point are ratshit. > Every pro knows it. LOL! Apparently most of the working pros who shoot action sports didn't get the memo since Canon still dominates in that area. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 1/02/2010 3:50 AM: >> Canon's images. Not Souza's images. See if you capice: >> Canon's AF and its lenses focus point are ratshit. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Apparently most of the working pros who shoot action sports didn't get > the memo since Canon still dominates in that area. Yeah, I'm sure the large numbers of pros who shoot sports are part of the memo from Canon on increasing market share: it's such a large market segment, after all... Oh, and do they shoot presidents now as well? >> On 1/29/2010 9:43 AM Scott W spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I mean, you know, not with Canon gear, but still. :) Yeah, but when he takes an, "Official Presidential Portrait", you'd think he might take his best film camera and do it up right...... > "Jeremy Nixon" <~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yeah, but when he takes an, "Official Presidential Portrait", you'd think > he might take his best film camera and do it up right...... I'd be inclined to do the official portrait on medium format film, or maybe 4x5. A presidential portrait is forever. On the other hand -- I may be a good photographer, and you may be a good photographer, but if anyone here were qualified to be the official White House photographer, they would be. Far be it from me to tell Mr. Souza how to do his job. The needs of high-end professionals are very different from the needs of amateurs, hobbyists, and artists, and there really isn't any comparison. SignatureJeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net Email address in header is valid >> "Jeremy Nixon"<~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I'd be inclined to do the official portrait on medium format film, or > maybe 4x5. A presidential portrait is forever. Obama's official portrait is digital though (not full res): http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg and Reagan's grainy film shot ;-) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Official_Portrait_of_President_Reagan_1981.jpg > On the other hand -- I may be a good photographer, and you may be a good > photographer, but if anyone here were qualified to be the official White > House photographer, they would be. Far be it from me to tell Mr. Souza > how to do his job. The needs of high-end professionals are very different > from the needs of amateurs, hobbyists, and artists, and there really isn't > any comparison. > Obama's official portrait is digital though (not full res): > http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg > > and Reagan's grainy film shot ;-) > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Official_Portrait_of_President_Reagan_1981.jpg Looking at them side by side, Reagan's is better. The Obama portrait has that sterile, lifeless, homogeneous digital look (which doesn't even have to be a characteristic of all digital images). Reagan's has more life, more emotion, more character. The scan at the Reagan Library site is much worse, which just shows how important a good scan is. SignatureJeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net Email address in header is valid > > Obama's official portrait is digital though (not full res): > >http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The scan at the Reagan Library site is much worse, which just shows how > important a good scan is. I guess not matter how bad the photo if it is shot on film it is better? Scott > I guess not matter how bad the photo if it is shot on film it is > better? Don't be ridiculous. Who said that? SignatureJeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net Email address in header is valid >>> Obama's official portrait is digital though (not full res): >>> http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I guess not matter how bad the photo if it is shot on film it is > better? I guess not matter how bad the photo if it is shot on digital it is better? LOL! It seems like Scott's only interest is to put down film, coming up with the silliest arguments in order to do so. Do you sell digital cameras? On Jan 30, 10:28 pm, Rol_Lei Nut <Speleo_Karstlens...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> Obama's official portrait is digital though (not full res): > >>>http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Do you sell digital cameras No one has to "sell" digital cameras. You think digital camera manufactures worry one little bit about how much market share they are loosing to film? Scott > On Jan 30, 10:28 pm, Rol_Lei Nut <Speleo_Karstlens...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > manufactures worry one little bit about how much market share they are > loosing to film? I'm not arguing about market shares, consumer choices (and gullibility). The masses make their choices, whether they're informed, rational or not. But you didn't answer my question: Do you sell digital cameras, own stock in digital camera companies or otherwise have a personal interest in promoting digital and putting film down every chance you get? > I'm not arguing about market shares, consumer choices (and gullibility). > The masses make their choices, whether they're informed, rational or not. > > But you didn't answer my question: Do you sell digital cameras, own > stock in digital camera companies or otherwise have a personal interest > in promoting digital and putting film down every chance you get? To my knowledge Scott isn't in the camera selling business. Nor am I. And nobody here is talking about digital P&S cameras or making the claim that the masses are buying cheapo digital cameras because they are so much better than film. Let's stick to what the pros use. The vast majority of them have switched to Digital .... that's just a fact. Nobody denies that Digital is much easier to use from a workflow perspective, but do you think these pros would switch if the quality wasn't equal to or better than film? There's probably a couple of hundred APUG luddites who will never switch, but most of the world has seen the light. Even a long time film advocate like "Arizona Highways" magazine now accepts digital images for publication. Film is what it is. It is a stagnant technology because it hasn't gotten much better over the years. In fact, some of the best films are no longer made. The ones that remain are striving to have lower grain, perhaps to compete with the low noise of digital. And I haven't seen too many films that can take acceptable images at much over 1600 ASA, let alone 100,000. Digital technology, on the other hand, continues to improve. I remember drooling at the original Foveon Digital Camera system that was announced, the one with the lens tethered to a laptop computer. Priced at around $25,000, it promised big beautiful digital images of 2000x2000 pixel size. Wow, almost 4 Megapixels! My wife carries a little slim Kodak in her purse that probably takes better pics than that monster. The "digital vs. film" battle has already been won by digital at the 35mm size. Film luddites still claim that larger format films give better results, and in some cases it might be true. But even if it is true, it likely won't be true for much longer. Film ain't gettin no better. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 1/02/2010 3:46 AM: > The "digital vs. film" battle has already been won by digital at the > 35mm size. Film luddites still claim that larger format films give > better results, and in some cases it might be true. But even if it is > true, it likely won't be true for much longer. Film ain't gettin no > better. <yaaaaawnnn> >> On Jan 30, 10:28 pm, Rol_Lei Nut <Speleo_Karstlens...@yahoo.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > interest in promoting digital and putting film down every chance > you get? Don't you have anything else to do? > Don't you have anything else to do? The irony for me is that I am reading this thread while I am scanning a whole lot of slides. >> Don't you have anything else to do? > The irony for me is that I am reading this thread while I am scanning > a whole lot of slides. That's been the sole value of this thread. I got around to scanning some 120 that I "backrolled" some time ago to make flat enough to scan. (Idiote at the store did not cut the roll despite bold instructions to do so...) Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. On Jan 31, 11:01 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > > On Jan 31, 7:23 am, "Frank ess"<fr...@fshe2fs.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (Idiote at the store did not cut the roll despite bold instructions to > do so...) In my case I am scanning my grandmother's slides, these are from the late 50s and early 60s, almost all on Kodachrome. Most of the photos are pretty bad, poor focus, camera shake or just boring subject. But there are a few in the group that I like, like this one. http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4320342576/sizes/l/ True she got the horse in better focus then the rider, but still not a bad photo, imo. But scanning this is a real pain, I would much rather get the photos in a digital format then slides or negatives. I have to wonder how many people get their parent's or grandparent's slide collection don’t have a slide projector or a film scanner. I had to save my grandmother’s slide from the dump, which is where my parents were going to take them. If you shoot film do your kids a big favor and scan the film yourself. Scott > On Jan 31, 11:01 am, Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > True she got the horse in better focus then the rider, but still not a > bad photo, imo. Don't recent v. of ICE work on Kodachrome? The horse does look pretty good... > But scanning this is a real pain, I would much rather get the photos > in a digital format then slides or negatives. I have to wonder how [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > If you shoot film do your kids a big favor and scan the film yourself. I've recently scanned a lot of my parents slides from the 50/60's. Followed pretty standard "keeper" ratios, actually getting better the later the shots were taken. Some great one's in there... Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. On Jan 31, 12:31 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > Don't recent v. of ICE work on Kodachrome? The horse does look pretty > good... My scanner is a Minolta DiMage San Dual III, which sadly does not have ICE. My parents have been shooting digital for 10 years now, and are getting far better photos with a small point and shoot digital them my grandmother managed to get with her 35mm film camera, here is one of my parents. http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4319746045/sizes/l/ Could someone get a better photo using film, maybe, but I know my parents could not and I know my grandmother never did, so a bit thank you to my parents for shooting digital, good photos and I don't have to scan them and the exif data had the date and time the photo was taken. Scott > My parents have been shooting digital for 10 years now, and are > getting far better photos with a small point and shoot digital them my > grandmother managed to get with her 35mm film camera, here is one of > my parents. http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4319746045/sizes/l/ That's your parents? Are they in one of those cars? I'm guessin that one wasn't taken in Kona.? > My parents have been shooting digital for 10 years now, and are > getting far better photos with a small point and shoot digital them my > grandmother managed to get with her 35mm film camera, here is one of > my parents. > http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4319746045/sizes/l/ Now - how are they managing the data? This is something I can't get my SO to appreciate. That is she recognizes the problem but won't engage in the solutions. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. On Feb 1, 12:46 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > > My parents have been shooting digital for 10 years now, and are > > getting far better photos with a small point and shoot digital them my [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > SO to appreciate. That is she recognizes the problem but won't engage > in the solutions. Their entire digital collection takes up very little room, around 8.41 GB. They have a bit less then 8,000 photos in their collection, going back over 10 years. I grab a copy of all their photos when ever I visit to partly as an extra backup and partly just to have the photos. It is my mother that is keeping the photos on the computer and I scan tell from the copies that I have that it is a work in progress. What she has been doing for the last 6 years is to have a directory for each year and then sub-directories for subjects. For their own backups they are copying all the photos to CDs from time to time, I have offered to set them up with an external HD but they know how to do the CDs and are happy with that so that is what they do. Now here is something that is pretty amazing, so far I have scanned 169 photos of my grandmother's slides, for now I am scanning at 2820 ppi and 16 bits/color, the result is that those 169 photos take up more room on my hard drive then the close to 8,000 photos of my parents, and there are very few from my grandmother that capture more detail. I could and at some point I might down size the scans from the grandmothers. But it is much harder to compress a film scan because of the grain. As I have said before I would much rather get photos from relatives that are in a digital format. On Jan 31, 11:01 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > On 10-01-31 13:14 , Scott W wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (Idiote at the store did not cut the roll despite bold instructions to > do so...) In my case I am scanning my grandmother's slides, these are from the late 50s and early 60s, almost all on Kodachrome. Most of the photos are pretty bad, poor focus, camera shake or just boring subject. But there are a few in the group that I like, like this one. http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4320342576/sizes/l/ True she got the horse in better focus then the rider, but still not a bad photo, imo. But scanning this is a real pain, I would much rather get the photos in a digital format then slides or negatives. I have to wonder how many people get their parent's or grandparent's slide collection don’t have a slide projector or a film scanner. I had to save my grandmother’s slide from the dump, which is where my parents were going to take them. If you shoot film do your kids a big favor and scan the film yourself. Scott Or hire a teenager to do it for you.......That shot of the horse and rider is an excellent one, in my opinion........A little "photoshopping" can dig the rider's features out of the dark, too........ > But scanning this is a real pain, I would much rather get the photos > in a digital format then slides or negatives. I have to wonder how > many people get their parent's or grandparent's slide collection don’t > have a slide projector or a film scanner. I had to save my > grandmother’s slide from the dump, which is where my parents were > going to take them. I have only a very few slides from my grandfather's collection. He used to travel all over the world and would send his slides off to be processed. I ended up with one box that somebody forgot to throw away. My mom has albums and albums of photos from the past 50 years or so. I asked her if she had the negatives and she said, "Oh no, why would I need those? I threw them all away." Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go make another archival backup of my digital photos. > I have only a very few slides from my grandfather's collection. He > used to travel all over the world and would send his slides off to be > processed. I ended up with one box that somebody forgot to throw > away. My mom has albums and albums of photos from the past 50 years > or so. I asked her if she had the negatives and she said, "Oh no, why > would I need those? I threw them all away." I can understand the sentiment. Seven years back I discovered that my aunt had thrown out the negatives of my grandfather's pictures. These included box-brownie pictures from the early 1920's. Of those we have prints only at a size with a longest dimension of maybe three inches. There are also some contact prints from WW1. SignatureStephen Harker s.harker@adfa.edu.au PEMS http://sjharker.customer.netspace.net.au/ UNSW@ADFA snip >http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4320342576/sizes/l/ >True she got the horse in better focus then the rider, but still not a >bad photo, imo. That is a nice shot. > The irony for me is that I am reading this thread while I am scanning > a whole lot of slides. With my scanner I can read "War & Peace" while scanning one roll. Or at least "Meter Maids in Bondage." >> Obama's official portrait is digital though (not full res): >> http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to be a characteristic of all digital images). Reagan's has more life, more > emotion, more character. I'll agree on the comment elsewhere in the thread that a creative portrait photog could do better than a journalist. A super-formal portrait like this anyone could do. > The scan at the Reagan Library site is much worse, which just shows how > important a good scan is. >>> Obama's official portrait is digital though (not full res): >>> http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > portrait photog could do better than a journalist. A super-formal > portrait like this anyone could do. Oh, I just remembered, this photog did a set of portraits of all of Obama's staff, and they were all very stark/candid. White background and two reflector umbrellas, many had a prop of their choosing and were not posed by the photog, just left to stand as they chose. Mostly they were not flattering, more like candids. >>>> Obama's official portrait is digital though (not full res): >>>> http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >posed by the photog, just left to stand as they chose. Mostly they were >not flattering, more like candids. I remember those. The portrait of Hillary Clinton was particularly unflattering. Perhaps this particular photographer specialises in unflattering portraits? >>> "Jeremy Nixon"<~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> isn't >> any comparison. With hundreds of press photographers taking thousands of photos of the president over a four or eight year period, I am sure that some excellent pictures of him will emerge.....Many will be better than that, "official photo". I believe I have already seen several that were better (in my opinion) than that one. >With hundreds of press photographers taking thousands of photos of the >president over a four or eight year period, I am sure that some excellent >pictures of him will emerge.....Many will be better than that, "official >photo". I believe I have already seen several that were better (in my >opinion) than that one. I agree it isn't the most flattering portrait. There is no connection between the subject and photographer. It doesn't appear to be the work of a portrait photographer. The lighting is harsh, plus a longer focal length would probably have improved the perspective. I would also have chosen a wider aperture to further defocus the background. The Reagan shot is very much better. It has nothing to do with the choice of medium, film versus digital. There is a warmth that is completely lacking in the Obama shot, and that isn't solely due to the difference in the subjects' personalities. The lighting is still strong, but much less harsh. The longer focal length makes for a more flattering perspective. The background is defocused to just the right degree. The photographer knew how to make a good portrait. > I agree it isn't the most flattering portrait. There is no connection > between the subject and photographer. It doesn't appear to be the > work of a portrait photographer. > > The lighting is harsh, plus a longer focal length would probably have > improved the perspective. You think 105mm is too short of a lens to shot a portrait? Scott >> I agree it isn't the most flattering portrait. There is no connection >> between the subject and photographer. It doesn't appear to be the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >You think 105mm is too short of a lens to shot a portrait? No, not at all. My own preference is even shorter, at 85mm, but I see from the EXIF that it was 105mm, so I retract the comment. So rather than being the result of using a shorter lens, that must be what Obama really looks like. Eek! On Jan 31, 12:15 am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree it isn't the most flattering portrait. There is no connection > between the subject and photographer. It doesn't appear to be the > work of a portrait photographer. > > The lighting is harsh, plus a longer focal length would probably have > improved the perspective. You think 105mm is too short of a lens to shot a portrait? Scott This depends on the size of the film. For 35mm film, around 80mm is considered to be the "ideal" length, but this too, depends on whether the portrait is a head and shoulders shot, or a full length picture. >>With hundreds of press photographers taking thousands of photos of the >>president over a four or eight year period, I am sure that some excellent [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > defocused to just the right degree. The photographer knew how to make > a good portrait. My father was an excellent photographer. He took many portraits, and won some prizes with his work. He had portrait lenses that were slightly fuzzy, or not too sharp, that he prized as good portrait lenses. He said that when you looked at someone, you didn't see every hair on their face. You saw the overall person, and a good portrait also "saw" the overall person, and not every little blemish on the person's face or clothes. Also, the backgrounds on my dad's portraits were not in sharp focus. They were recognizable, but out of focus, so they did not distract from the portrait. They were not always just an evenly colored backdrop, however....Sometime they were a recognizable scene, such as the ocean, or a field of grass, so the person could be "placed" in an environment that meant something in his or her life. A presidential portrait might be done in front of the white house, or the capital building, for example, but with the building out of focus, so it was only just identifiable, but didn't distract from the image of the person. > My father was an excellent photographer. He took many portraits, and won > some prizes with his work. He had portrait lenses that were slightly fuzzy, > or not too sharp, that he prized as good portrait lenses. He said that when > you looked at someone, you didn't see every hair on their face. Sounds like old dad went with the cheap kit lens. On Jan 31, 6:36 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote: > My father was an excellent photographer. He took many portraits, and won > some prizes with his work. He had portrait lenses that were slightly > fuzzy, > or not too sharp, that he prized as good portrait lenses. He said that > when > you looked at someone, you didn't see every hair on their face. Sounds like old dad went with the cheap kit lens. Actually, he was an expert on lenses....That was his specialty, and he found lenses he liked in second hand stores and garage sales and other unlikely places....He had several large format wooden cameras, and he would mount these lenses on wooden boards, and use them in these cameras, which is something that it is rather hard to do with 35 mm stuff. He could hold a lens up and look at something through it and estimate it's focal length well enough to know whether he could use it on one of his cameras or not. > On Jan 31, 6:36 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > estimate it's focal length well enough to know whether he could use it > on one of his cameras or not. I don't think my dad was really much of an expert but he was a reporter & photog before I came along: http://edgehill.net/Misc/photography/Tokyo-Optical-Co He died when I was 10 and I don't remember him even having any gear left by that time, though some family pics when I was a toddler were home printed b&w. >> On Jan 31, 6:36 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > by that time, though some family pics when I was a toddler were home > printed b&w. Well, at least he made his living from photography.....My dad would have loved to do that.....He was a traffic manager for Standard Oil, but he aspired to make his living from the arts, and he tried to teach me to be a photographer, but I was a typical teenager, and refused to listen to him. I did learn a lot of photography from him without his realizing it, however.... > The Reagan shot is very much better. It has nothing to do with the > choice of medium, film versus digital. There is a warmth that is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > defocused to just the right degree. The photographer knew how to make > a good portrait. The point of comparing the Obama portrait specifically to the Reagan one is that the current White House photographer was also Reagan's White House photographer. So: did he *forget* how to make a good portrait? SignatureJeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net Email address in header is valid >> The Reagan shot is very much better. It has nothing to do with the >> choice of medium, film versus digital. There is a warmth that is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >White House photographer. So: did he *forget* how to make a good >portrait? If it really is the same photographer, then yes, he probably forgot. If he was also responsible for the disappointing "candid" portraits of other members of the Obama team, as has been suggested here, then yes, he *definitely* forgot. ;-) Given the number of years that have elapsed since Reagan;s presidential term, the photographer must be getting quite old - unless of course he was very young for the role in Reagan's time. >> The Reagan shot is very much better. It has nothing to do with the >> choice of medium, film versus digital. There is a warmth that is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > White House photographer. So: did he *forget* how to make a good > portrait? No, but he's learned how to tailor his work to the clientele.....:^) >> The Reagan shot is very much better. It has nothing to do with the >> choice of medium, film versus digital. There is a warmth that is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > White House photographer. So: did he *forget* how to make a good > portrait? He didn't do Reagan's official portrait, just some other more journalistic assistant type work for Reagan. I get the sense that he has a reporter style to his work. More modern and stark than a traditional portrait photog. Maybe that's fine, Obama wants to project a transparent image, not warm fuzzies & BS.. or not... <g>. Perhaps he should have farmed out the official portrait part to someone with more Hollywood flare & style, or not... I think the staff candids were effective in regards to the idea of transparency and lack of BS. They say: 'these are real people.' I like that honesty and frankness, and I suppose the same applies to the official portrait although it *is* posed so comes off as a sort of lame compromise. He submitted to the same harsh flat lighting but got time to pose and was allowed a swarm of makeup artists adjusting his collar just so... Um, OK I was mistaken, the candid portraits were by Nadav Kander, not Pete Souza, the offical White House photographer. http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/magazine/2009-inauguration-gallery/index.html http://www.nadavkander.com/ Kander = candor ??? :-) >> The point of comparing the Obama portrait specifically to the Reagan >> one is that the current White House photographer was also Reagan's >> White House photographer. So: did he *forget* how to make a good >> portrait? > > He didn't do Reagan's official portrait, Oh, okay. I spent 3 minutes at Google, didn't find a photo credit for Reagan's, and gave up, assuming it was him. :) > Um, OK I was mistaken, the candid portraits were by Nadav Kander, not > Pete Souza, the offical White House photographer. These are what the staff pictures *should* be: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/03/obama-portfolio200903 SignatureJeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net Email address in header is valid > The point of comparing the Obama portrait specifically to the Reagan > one is that the current White House photographer was also Reagan's > White House photographer. So: did he *forget* how to make a good > portrait? Well to be fair, Reagan forgot lotsa stuff during that time as well. On Jan 29, 7:02 am, "K W Hart" <kwha...@verizon.net> wrote: > "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > portrait, then an optical print from a film negative is the obvious > choice. Odd that if the choice was so obvious that the White House photographer is shooting with DSLRs. Scott -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not sure that I would cite the White House as an authority on photography, or many other things for that matter! But since the White House photographers are probably shooting mainly for news publications, most of which are probably composing their pages with a computer rather than a pot of paste, digital is probably the better choice. OTOH, I ceratinly hope the official Presidential portrait and First Family portrait have been shoot on film for maximum quality and longest life. > On Jan 29, 7:02 am, "K W Hart" <kwha...@verizon.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > OTOH, I ceratinly hope the official Presidential portrait and First Family > portrait have been shoot on film for maximum quality and longest life.- Hide quoted text - Nope, the official protrait was taken with a digital camera, you can see it here http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/new_official_portrait_released/ Scott >> On Jan 29, 7:02 am, "K W Hart" <kwha...@verizon.net> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Scott And they left the EXIF ... > And they left the EXIF Noons will probably say the EXIF data was faked. Scott On 1/29/2010 2:41 PM Scott W spake thus: >> And they left the EXIF > > Noons will probably say the EXIF data was faked. Certainly not claiming they did, but I agree w/Noons that there's nothing magically secure or particularly believable about EXIF data. It's just some fields in an image file header: seems trivially easy to rewrite it to suit one's purposes. Any programmer worth his or her salt should be able to do that. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > On 1/29/2010 2:41 PM Scott W spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > rewrite it to suit one's purposes. Any programmer worth his or her salt > should be able to do that. True, but just because the EXIF can be faked does not mean it has been. I have seen Noons get bent out of shape because the EXIF said the flash had or had not been used and he thought it was the other way around. Scott Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/01/2010 11:01 AM: > True, but just because the EXIF can be faked does not mean it has > been. But just because it can be easily faked it means it should *never* be used as an example of truth. > I have seen Noons get bent out of shape because the EXIF said the > flash had or had not been used and he thought it was the other way > around. And because the person in question has a long history of faking shots, backgrounds, exifs, etcetc. There is such a thing as context Scott, in case you have forgotten it. Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/01/2010 9:41 AM: >> And they left the EXIF > Noons will probably say the EXIF data was faked. Just like the small jpg I posted with the exif from your image? Yes, indeed. On Jan 29, 10:23 am, "K W Hart" <kwha...@verizon.net> wrote: > "Scott W" <biph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > portrait have been shoot on film for maximum quality and longest life.- > Hide quoted text - Nope, the official protrait was taken with a digital camera, you can see it here http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/new_official_portrait_released/ Scott Since I don't live in Washington, DC, the photo, as seen by me on my computer, is going to be digitized in any case, so there is no way I can criticize it because of, "digitization". ASAMOF, all photos in this group, whether taken with film or digital SLR's suffer from the same fate. > On Jan 29, 10:23 am, "K W Hart" <kwha...@verizon.net> wrote: >> "Scott W" <biph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:a0fa9710-ffa4-4c2b-8382-53d04e23ac33@s36g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> I'm not sure that I would cite the White House as an authority on >> photography, or many other things for that matter! [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > criticize it because of, "digitization". ASAMOF, all photos in this group, > whether taken with film or digital SLR's suffer from the same fate. As the "official" Presidental portrait, the above cited photo doesn't impress me. To me, it looks like a WalMart portrait, not the least bit "Presidential". The lighting and background are very plain- it's like an ID photo- there's no drama to it. Someone else here pointed out that the photographer worked for the Reagan admin so probably 'grew up' on film. Perhaps his background is news/journalism photography. If so, it's a shame the White House didn't select a photographer with a background in portraiture. Mr Graham points out that any photo seen online is going to be a 'digital' photo. (I hope my paraphrasing is acceptable.) This is why I won't post my work for critical viewing online. If anyone wants to compare my film shots optically printed to their digital photos, I will only do it with the actual photographic prints. Figure out a way for me to cram a 20x24" print into a port on my DSL modem and have it spit out of your modem just as it left here, and I'll gladly post it! I do post some of my work on Facebook, but with the notation that it was shot on film and loses quality in the scan process. > I do post some of my work on Facebook, but > with the notation that it was shot on film and loses quality in the scan > process. That warning isn't need on FaceBook since FaceBook trashes all photos anyway. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 31/01/2010 12:05 PM: >> I do post some of my work on Facebook, but >> with the notation that it was shot on film and loses quality in the scan >> process. > > That warning isn't need on FaceBook since FaceBook trashes all photos > anyway. Wow! I'll bet that was a surprise! LOL! > Someone else here pointed out that the > photographer worked for the Reagan admin so probably 'grew up' on film. > Perhaps his background is news/journalism photography. If so, it's a shame > the White House didn't select a photographer with a background in > portraiture. Why? Very few of the photos he takes are formal portraits. Probably 99% of them are photojournalistic in nature. On Jan 29, 7:02 am, "K W Hart" <kwha...@verizon.net> wrote: > "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > portrait, then an optical print from a film negative is the obvious > choice. Odd that if the choice was so obvious that the White House photographer is shooting with DSLRs. Scott Sure. There is no question that the film photo could well have an artistic value that the digital one doesn't have. For the same reason, there are people who still paint and sculpt. If recording for posterity was their only motive, they would all be using DSLR's. > On Jan 29, 7:02 am, "K W Hart" <kwha...@verizon.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > people who still paint and sculpt. If recording for posterity was their only > motive, they would all be using DSLR's I am not saying you could not do a portrait with a film camera, clearly you can, what I am saying is that it is not "the obvious choice" The way David writes film is the only real choice for a portrait, but clearly it is a choice, but not the only choice. Scott On 1/29/2010 10:52 PM Scott W spake thus: > The way David writes film is the only real choice for a portrait, but > clearly it is a choice, but not the only choice. Check your attribution: that wasn't me who said (or implied) that. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > On 1/29/2010 10:52 PM Scott W spake thus: > > > The way David writes film is the only real choice for a portrait, but > > clearly it is a choice, but not the only choice. > > Check your attribution: that wasn't me who said (or implied) that. You’re right, I apologize, it was K W Hart who said that. Scott > I do worry that in 20 years only the slides will still be viewable > while most of my digital pics are buried on old hard drives and > unreadable DVDs. My solution, two separate backups. At first hint of at hard drive failing replace it. Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk >I'm doing some math, and I think each shot, with flash, is going to cost >about 4 bucks. Sheesh -- better get it right the first time !! I pay about 6 bucks a shot when I use my 4x5" field camera, not counting printing and/or scanning. I could use it with flash bulbs -- I have a couple of dozen M2 and M3B bulbs and a Nikon BC-7 flash to fire them in, but I've yet to try that. Today, I picked up from the lab a roll of Velveeta 100 I shot this weekend with my Pentax 645n. The macro shots look pretty good, but the landscapes are, alas, simply boring. The 35mm shooting schedule includes some Ektar 100 and some Agfa APX 100, but with New England weather you have to be a bit flexible about one's shooting schedule. SignatureMike Benveniste -- mhb@murkyether.com (Clarification Required) Don't succumb to the false authority of a tool or model. There is no substitute for thinking. Michael Benveniste wrote,on my timestamp of 26/01/2010 2:07 PM: >> I'm doing some math, and I think each shot, with flash, is going to cost >> about 4 bucks. Sheesh -- better get it right the first time !! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I have a couple of dozen M2 and M3B bulbs and a Nikon BC-7 flash to > fire them in, but I've yet to try that. Hmmmm.... I paid 50 pacific pesos for my last 30m roll of Tri-X. In Rodinal ($15 bottle) at 1:200, it works out at about 8 cents a shot including the fixer. Darn, I better watch the finances this summer... ;) > Today, I picked up from the lab a roll of Velveeta 100 I shot this > weekend with my Pentax 645n. The macro shots look pretty good, but > the landscapes are, alas, simply boring. The 35mm shooting schedule > includes some Ektar 100 and some Agfa APX 100, but with New England > weather you have to be a bit flexible about one's shooting schedule. Ektar 100 is great indoors with tungsten light. The colours are superb. Try a roll with a wide open small tele and get it processed by someone who knows what they are doing: you'll love it. On 1/25/2010 9:47 PM Noons spake thus: > Ektar 100 is great indoors with tungsten light. The colours are > superb. Try a roll with a wide open small tele and get it processed > by someone who knows what they are doing: you'll love it. But doesn't that leave you with a distinct orange cast? Not saying that's necessarily the end of the world; I've done plenty of shooting (in days past) using daylight film under tungsten, with pleasing (to me, at least) results. In fact, some of my best pictures, done when I was a 17-year-old snot-nose, were of a theater group's performance under hot tungsten lights. Some of the picture actually came out *red*, not just orange, but it suited the subject matter (Jean-Claude van Itallie's "The Serpent") perfectly. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" >On 1/25/2010 9:47 PM Noons spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >But doesn't that leave you with a distinct orange cast? Only if you use an incompetent processor. On 1/26/2010 3:24 PM Bruce spake thus: >> On 1/25/2010 9:47 PM Noons spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Only if you use an incompetent processor. I don't believe that's the case; you're basically mis-exposing the film, color-wise. How can a processor compensate for tungsten exposure on daylight film? Now I know there are compensating filters available, but that's different. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > I don't believe that's the case; you're basically mis-exposing the film, > color-wise. How can a processor compensate for tungsten exposure on > daylight film? If you can get enough exposure in the blue layer, both film and processors will cope nicely with the overexposure of the red. In an emergency I have shot Fuji 800 colour negative with my meter set to 250. I did this with pictures from my aunt's 100th birthday party a couple years ago and the pictures are not orange at all. (Shooting at 250 under domestic tungsten lights does require exposures like 1/16 at f/2, but my hands were pretty steady that day so it was a success.) > Now I know there are compensating filters available, but that's different. The filters will result in a more normal negative, but if you can get enough exposure in the blues, the excess reds will still be within the dynamic range of the red layer and the negatives will be printable. It seems that modern automated processors are set up to do the required filtration on printing. Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net On 1/27/2010 7:55 AM Peter Irwin spake thus: >> I don't believe that's the case; you're basically mis-exposing the >> film, color-wise. How can a processor compensate for tungsten [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > be printable. It seems that modern automated processors are set > up to do the required filtration on printing. OK, I see; it's basically a post-processing (meaning film processing) adjustment. I thought we were talking about *film* processing, and that there was some kind of compensation for wrong exposure that could be applied there. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" >On 1/26/2010 3:24 PM Bruce spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >color-wise. How can a processor compensate for tungsten exposure on >daylight film? How does a DSLR compensate for tungsten exposure on a daylight-balanced sensor? You are basically mis-exposing the shot in just the same way. It is a non-problem. You only need colour correcting filters when using slide film, and not always then. On 1/27/2010 11:34 AM Bruce spake thus: >> On 1/26/2010 3:24 PM Bruce spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > daylight-balanced sensor? You are basically mis-exposing the shot in > just the same way. From what little I know about digital, that's done by adjusting the white balance. > It is a non-problem. You only need colour correcting filters when > using slide film, and not always then. That's what I'm hearing, which is news to me. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" >On 1/27/2010 11:34 AM Bruce spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > From what little I know about digital, that's done by adjusting the >white balance. With film, it is done by adjusting the filtration at the printing stage. >> It is a non-problem. You only need colour correcting filters when >> using slide film, and not always then. > >That's what I'm hearing, which is news to me. See above. > > Ektar 100 is great indoors with tungsten light. The colours are > > superb. Try a roll with a wide open small tele and get it processed > > by someone who knows what they are doing: you'll love it. > > But doesn't that leave you with a distinct orange cast? Not really. Don't ask me what Kodak has done with that film, but the usual " daylight/tungsten" rule doesn't apply here. They scan perfectly, with just a hint of orange: nothing compared with the old " everything is orange" problem. > In fact, some of my best pictures, done when I was a 17-year-old > snot-nose, were of a theater group's performance under hot tungsten > lights. Some of the picture actually came out *red*, not just orange, > but it suited the subject matter (Jean-Claude van Itallie's "The > Serpent") perfectly. On 1/26/2010 7:15 PM Noons spake thus: >>> Ektar 100 is great indoors with tungsten light. The colours are >>> superb. Try a roll with a wide open small tele and get it processed [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > perfectly, with just a hint of orange: nothing compared with the old " > everything is orange" problem. Thanks. I'll have to try some of that soon. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > On 1/25/2010 9:47 PM Noons spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > But doesn't that leave you with a distinct orange cast? Enjoy this rare moment of humility when I say that Noons probably knows more about film than I do. Of course, I know a helluva lot more about digital than he does, but I digress. I was also confused by his claim that using Ektar indoors will give great color. Isn't Ektar 100 a daylight balanced film? How do it know? Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 27/01/2010 4:25 PM: > Enjoy this rare moment of humility when I say that Noons probably > knows more about film than I do. "probably"? > Of course, I know a helluva lot more about digital than he does, but I > digress. No. You just said the truth, for once. Oh... sorry!... > I was also confused by his claim that using Ektar indoors will give > great color. That was not my claim. But feel free to clearly make a fool of yourself. > Isn't Ektar 100 a daylight balanced film? The 30 old "daylight/tungsten" chestnut only shows your total ignorance of what modern film is like. Hint: when was the last time you saw a new film totally dedicated to "tungsten"? Note that I am not saying it is one and the same. > How do it > know? er... when you switch back to the Queen's language, I'll answer that... > Hmmmm.... I paid 50 pacific pesos for my last 30m roll of Tri-X. > In Rodinal ($15 bottle) at 1:200, it works out at about 8 cents a shot > including the fixer. Darn, I better watch the finances this summer... I don't process my own film for a couple of reasons. The first is personal preference -- I never really enjoyed the process. The second is chemical disposal. Legally I'm not allowed to dump the stuff into my home's septic system. The lab I use charges $4.00 per 4x5" sheet, so black and white works out to $5.00 per shot. 35mm or 120 B&W is $11.00 per roll. I do have some bulk film in my freezer, but it's weird stuff: -- 70mm Agfa C-41 Aerographic Film -- 70mm Tech Pan -- 35mm Eterna 500 (ECN II, tungsten balanced) > Ektar 100 is great indoors with tungsten light. The colours are superb. > Try a roll with a wide open small tele and get it processed by someone who > knows what they are doing: you'll love it. Interesting, especially since Kodak still recommends an 80A filter when using the film under tungsten light. I'll give it a try, but my guess is that the correction is being applied automatically when printing. http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4046/e4046.pdf SignatureMike Benveniste -- mhb@murkyether.com (Clarification Required) Don't succumb to the false authority of a tool or model. There is no substitute for thinking. Michael Benveniste wrote,on my timestamp of 28/01/2010 1:56 AM: > I don't process my own film for a couple of reasons. The first is personal > preference -- I never really enjoyed the process. Granted. > The second is chemical > disposal. Legally I'm not allowed to dump the stuff into my home's septic > system. Er.... If you brew coffee and tea and cook fries at home, you are disposing of much worse chemicals than what Rodinal uses. That old chestnut applies to *commercial* development quantities. IOW: if you run a lab at home, you better watch it. Rodinal at 1:100 is around 3cc in 300cc of water, 1:200 is half that. I'm not suggesting you drink it but your pot and garden plants will cope with it, easy. Mine do. > The lab I use charges $4.00 per 4x5" sheet, so black and white works out > to $5.00 per shot. 35mm or 120 B&W is $11.00 per roll. Yikes! I'm very unlucky when I pay more than A$6 for C41 35mm development, with E6 at around A$8-9. 120 both C41 and E6 is a bit cheaper. Don't use 4X5, so I can't comment. And of course all b&w I use home brew, which is cheap as water. > I do have some bulk film in my freezer, but it's weird stuff: > -- 70mm Agfa C-41 Aerographic Film Hmm, not so keen on Agfa colour... Some bad experiences here. Still: Aerographic? That may be different. > -- 70mm Tech Pan Wow! > -- 35mm Eterna 500 (ECN II, tungsten balanced) Sorry, no clue. > Interesting, especially since Kodak still recommends an 80A filter when > using > the film under tungsten light. I'll give it a try, but my guess is that the > correction > is being applied automatically when printing. They have to. Otherwise they can be sued. Photographers of course know better. Not when printing, when scanning. But the end result balance is incredibly pleasing, unlike the "everything orange" of old. Seriously: give it a try and get the lab to do one roll and print it. It takes a lot of low level tungsten to bring out the worst in Ektar 100. >> The second is chemical >> disposal. Legally I'm not allowed to dump the stuff into my home's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'm not suggesting you drink it but your pot and garden plants will cope > with it, easy. Mine do. I'm afraid that my state's Department of Environmental Protection disagrees. They don't distinguish between Rodinal, Vitamin C, or anything else, and the regulations are specifically defined at the household level: http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/hazardous/photo.htm The regulations allow you to pour developer (and rinse) solutions down the drain only in sewered areas, and fixer not at all. >> I do have some bulk film in my freezer, but it's weird stuff: >> -- 70mm Agfa C-41 Aerographic Film > > Hmm, not so keen on Agfa colour... Some bad experiences here. > Still: Aerographic? That may be different. Spec sheet: http://www.aeromapss.com/Aviphot%20Color%20N400%20PE1.pdf It's, well, interesting, but I wouldn't recommend running out and buying any. It's roughly equivalent to Optima 400, but doesn't seem to create Cyan skies as easily as, say, Kodak 400VC. I've used it twice -- once for some landscape shooting on Cape Ann and once at a horse show. So I still have around 65 feet of the stuff left. >> -- 70mm Tech Pan > Wow! One 40-foot roll left. Haven't figured out what to do with it yet. >> -- 35mm Eterna 500 (ECN II, tungsten balanced) > Sorry, no clue. It's a current Fuji movie film. http://business.fujifilm.co.uk/motion/pdfs/camera_stocks/et500.pdf I bought an unopened 200 foot roll of this stuff for about $40 in 2005 and posted a write-up in this group. The web pages, alas, were lost in an ISP shift. I've shot around a dozen still rolls and given a few more away, so I still have a little over half the roll left. Nice color and accurately rated, but when scanned at 4000dpi, the grain proved to be about the same as IS0-800 daylight balanced films like 800Z. SignatureMike Benveniste -- mhb@murkyether.com (Clarification Required) Don't succumb to the false authority of a tool or model. There is no substitute for thinking. Michael Benveniste wrote,on my timestamp of 29/01/2010 12:36 AM: > I'm afraid that my state's Department of Environmental Protection > disagrees. They don't distinguish between Rodinal, Vitamin C, or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The regulations allow you to pour developer (and rinse) solutions > down the drain only in sewered areas, and fixer not at all. Actually, those make a lot of sense. I can't stop a slight smirk everytime I hear folks claiming developers are toxic. Vastly more toxic is used fixer. And that regulation points it out clearly. Ah well, back to the old jerry can for the disposal of the used fixer then! Not to be unexpected, most such council "regulations" in Australia forbid disposal of developer but don't mention fixer! Shows what really happens when a country allows bureaucrats to pose as "authority".... >>> -- 70mm Agfa C-41 Aerographic Film >> Hmm, not so keen on Agfa colour... Some bad experiences here. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > twice -- once for some landscape shooting on Cape Ann and once at a > horse show. So I still have around 65 feet of the stuff left. Impressive specs! Thanks for that. My biggest problem with the entire Agfa colour range, negative or positive, was always the same: longevity. Most of my Agfa colour negatives and slides have turned to mush over the years. They were already bad a coupla years old! I have 50 year old Kodachrome slides that look as good now as they did back then, with perfect colour. And I have Fuji slides dating back from the same time as the Agfa that look as good as new now. >>> -- 70mm Tech Pan >> Wow! > > One 40-foot roll left. Haven't figured out what to do with > it yet. Cut it into 120 roll lengths and farm it out to the Apug folks: there are a few there that terribly miss Tech Pan! I'm still using Technidol LC and have a good stash of it, but it's reserved for Adox CMS 20. > It's a current Fuji movie film. > http://business.fujifilm.co.uk/motion/pdfs/camera_stocks/et500.pdf Ah ok. Thanks! > Nice color and accurately rated, but when scanned at 4000dpi, the > grain proved to be about the same as IS0-800 daylight balanced films > like 800Z. Funny you mention 800Z. I heard a lot of good and bad comments on this one. Some claimed it had "horrible" grain, others claimed it was the best for night shooting. I tried a coupla rolls in 35mm and had mixed reactions: 1- for daylight, I wouldn't touch it unless with low light interiors. Too grainy indeed, weird colour balance. 2- for artificial lighting and at night, I reckon it is perfect! The obnoxious large grain vanishes and all that's left is a fine grain that's easy to get rid of with Neat Image. This leads me to believe 800Z has a lot of grain in the blue light sensitive layer(s) and a lot less in the others. Which makes it perfect as a high speed film for interior shooting, artificial light, night shots, flash, etcetc. I've since used it as such and am very happy with the results! Here is an example: http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/two-religions-two-cathedrals-142906985 > Michael Benveniste wrote,on my timestamp of 29/01/2010 12:36 AM: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > disposal of developer but don't mention fixer! Shows what really happens > when a country allows bureaucrats to pose as "authority".... How do you dispose of your fixer in those places where it is illegal to pour it down the drain? Is there some way to recycle it? and what do "they" do with it after they get it? Can they recondition it and resell it as good fixer again? Like remove the silver from it? On 1/29/2010 8:25 PM Bill Graham spake thus: >> Michael Benveniste wrote,on my timestamp of 29/01/2010 12:36 AM: >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Can they recondition it and resell it as good fixer again? Like remove the > silver from it? For someone who's been around photography as long as you claim to have, you're awfully ignorant. No, "they" can't turn used fixer into usable fixer; once it's used up it's no good. The silver, however, *is* regularly reclaimed from it. This can even be done at home on a small scale, though it's something of a PITA. Or you can take the fixer to a larger lab where they can add it to their storage tank for reclamation. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > No, "they" can't turn used fixer into usable fixer; once it's used up it's > no good. The silver, however, *is* regularly reclaimed from it. This can > even be done at home on a small scale, though it's something of a PITA. Or > you can take the fixer to a larger lab where they can add it to their > storage tank for reclamation. Doesn't answer my question....Who eventually gets it, and what do they do with it? There are lots of "recycling trucks" in my life.....I see them driving away with their loads of sh.t, but I never see them coming toward me, and I never know just what they do with the stuff they recycle. If they dump it into the ground somewhere, then why shouldn't I dump it into my ground? If they throw it into the ocean, well, I am just as close to the ocean as they are, so why shouldn't I throw it into my ocean? On 1/29/2010 9:51 PM Bill Graham spake thus: >> No, "they" can't turn used fixer into usable fixer; once it's used up it's >> no good. The silver, however, *is* regularly reclaimed from it. This can [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > into my ground? If they throw it into the ocean, well, I am just as close to > the ocean as they are, so why shouldn't I throw it into my ocean? I don't know exactly what "they" do with it. I do know that the silver is relatively easy to extract, and that it *is* extracted, since it has some economic value. I'm pretty sure they don't just pump it underground, or dispose of it in a body of water, not if they're a reputable outfit. I assume that the spent fixer is chemically treated somehow to render it non-toxic, or at least less toxic. They may even extract some usable chemicals from it. A lot of chemicals get recycled and reused. (Probably not as much as should be.) But I'm not a chemist, so I can't give you the gory details. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > On 1/29/2010 9:51 PM Bill Graham spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > A lot of chemicals get recycled and reused. (Probably not as much as > should be.) But I'm not a chemist, so I can't give you the gory details. You are probably right with darkroom chemicals, and, in any case, today there is so little of them that it doesn't make much difference. But in general, I have always been suspicious of recyclers......I think a lot of it is a waste of time. In many cases it is just done for political purposes and doesn't really do anything for the environment in the long run. I have heard, (for example) that there is a huge slick of plastic bags and other crap that is covering a significant per cent of the Pacific ocean.....Stuff that has built up over the years. I think it is stuff that we thought was being recycled, but was just being thrown in the ocean over the last 60 years or so. > But in > general, I have always been suspicious of recyclers......I think a lot [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > stuff that we thought was being recycled, but was just being thrown in > the ocean over the last 60 years or so. Listening to too much loony right-wing radio again Bill? How about taking a serious interest into how things really work? I don't know about your neck of the woods, but in most places recycling *is* done seriously and has a significant impact on the amount of waste which is landfilled in the end. > You are probably right with darkroom chemicals, and, in any case, today > there is so little of them that it doesn't make much difference. But in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > we thought was being recycled, but was just being thrown in the ocean over > the last 60 years or so. I saw that on a TV documentary. I didn't sleep that night and I always wonder what really happens to the items I put for recycling, especially as my recyclers state "It is uneconomical to recycle certain recyclable plastics therefore we dispose of them via alternative methods". Pete >> You are probably right with darkroom chemicals, and, in any case, today >> there is so little of them that it doesn't make much difference. But in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Pete Yes. Their, "alternative methods" are probably dumping them in the river, where they make their way to the ocean. > On 1/29/2010 8:25 PM Bill Graham spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > you can take the fixer to a larger lab where they can add it to their > storage tank for reclamation. Getting the silver out of fixer is not too difficult- it can be as simple as dumping used fixer into a five gallon bucket filled with steel wool. Over time the silver 'plates out' (possibly not the proper expression- pardon my lack of chemistry knowledge) on the steel wool, which can be sent to a reclaiming company. You might get enough payment to cover the cost of the steel wool! A year ago, I had to make some drain plumbing changes in my color darkroom. The old drain pipe had a blackish coating that looked like tarnished silver coating it. I considered asking the muncipal authority to pay me for silver-plating the sewer lines, but I thought it might be best to just keep my mouth shut! K W Hart wrote,on my timestamp of 31/01/2010 3:39 AM: > Getting the silver out of fixer is not too difficult- it can be as simple as > dumping used fixer into a five gallon bucket filled with steel wool. Over > time the silver 'plates out' (possibly not the proper expression- pardon my > lack of chemistry knowledge) on the steel wool, which can be sent to a > reclaiming company. You might get enough payment to cover the cost of the > steel wool! Wow! Good tip, thanks! It tends to "plate" out the bottom of the bottles where I keep it, but this one is even better! > How do you dispose of your fixer in those places where it is illegal to > pour it down the drain? Is there some way to recycle it? and what do > "they" do with it after they get it? > Can they recondition it and resell it as good fixer again? Like remove > the silver from it? Lab I used to work at had a "Silver Recovery Unit" - not exactly sure how it worked, but I suspect it was some type of electro-plating type process. Every month or so the supplier of the unit would come and collect the silver (and pay us for it). He would usually collect a couple of kg at a time, and the cheques we received weren't for insignificant amounts (although small in comparison to what we paid for chemical and paper). Once the silver was removed, the waste was then deemed to be safe for the city sewer, and so the outflow of the SRU was plumbed direct to our sewage line. SignatureWhat is the difference between a duck? >Impressive specs! Thanks for that. My biggest problem with the >entire Agfa colour range, negative or positive, was always the same: >longevity. Most of my Agfa colour negatives and slides have turned > to mush over the years. No such problems here, but I don't think I have any Agfa negatives over a dozen years old and no Agfachrome at all. >Cut it into 120 roll lengths and farm it out to the Apug folks: >there are a few there that terribly miss Tech Pan! I'm still >using Technidol LC and have a good stash of it, but it's reserved >for Adox CMS 20. I have everything I need to shoot it, including a 70mm bulk loader, cartridges, Technidol, and the 70mm kit for the Pentax 645n. But I will have to cut it to dip-and-dunk lengths instead of the standard 15-foot lengths. It's just that I haven't figured out the right project. But spring is coming, such as it is in New England. >Funny you mention 800Z. I heard a lot of good and bad comments on >this one. I used NPZ/800Z only a few times, and never in full sunlight. I was okay with the colors, but found it had very little latitude for underexposure. My comparison against the 500T was based on an overcast shoot at Lime Rock Park. I do keep a 12-shot "decoy roll" of Fuji 1600, though. When flying with film, it makes it quicker to obtain a hand inspection. >Here is an example: >http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/two-religions-two-cathedrals-142906985 Nice shot. SignatureMike Benveniste -- mhb@murkyether.com (Clarification Required) Don't succumb to the false authority of a tool or model. There is no substitute for thinking. Michael Benveniste wrote,on my timestamp of 31/01/2010 1:29 AM: > I used NPZ/800Z only a few times, and never in full sunlight. I > was okay with the colors, but found it had very little latitude > for underexposure. Yes, indeed. I think Fuji came out with a "reformulated" 800Z recently that avoids that problem somewhat. But I agree entirely. Will get a chance of trying out the new stuff soon. >> Here is an example: >> http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/two-religions-two-cathedrals-142906985 > > Nice shot. Thanks. 1/30 is a bit of a stretch handheld. But with a rangefinder, it's somewhat easier than with a slr. >Today, I picked up from the lab a roll of Velveeta 100 I shot this >weekend with my Pentax 645n. Velveeta is a type of cheese. Did you mean "Velvia"? On 1/26/2010 3:09 PM Bruce spake thus: >> Today, I picked up from the lab a roll of Velveeta 100 I shot this >> weekend with my Pentax 645n. > > Velveeta is a type of cheese. Did you mean "Velvia"? The fact that you had to ask meant that the joke was lost on you, apparently. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > On 1/26/2010 3:09 PM Bruce spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The fact that you had to ask meant that the joke was lost on you, > apparently. Velveeta was Herb Cain's favorite film, wasn't it? >> On 1/26/2010 3:09 PM Bruce spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > Velveeta was Herb Cain's favorite film, wasn't it? Nobody from outside the Bay area is going to have any idea who Herb Caen was. SignatureRegards, Savageduck >>> On 1/26/2010 3:09 PM Bruce spake thus: >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Nobody from outside the Bay area is going to have any idea who Herb Caen > was. Yes, but that still leaves a hell of a lot of people on this group..... >>> On 1/26/2010 3:09 PM Bruce spake thus: >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Nobody from outside the Bay area is going to have any idea who Herb Caen > was. Regardless, the film in question was "Blue Velveeta". Dennis Hopper, Kyle McLaughlan, Izzy Rosselini. SignatureJohn McWilliams On 1/26/2010 6:30 PM John McWilliams spake thus: >> Nobody from outside the Bay area is going to have any idea who Herb Caen >> was. > > Regardless, the film in question was "Blue Velveeta". Dennis Hopper, > Kyle McLaughlan, Izzy Rosselini. Are you sure you don't mean /The Velveeta Rabbit/, the famous children's book? (And that's MacLachlan.) SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > On 1/26/2010 6:30 PM John McWilliams spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > (And that's MacLachlan.) Yes, but as you must know, the film was based on the child's book, recently seen in a scene in "Up in the Air".... Signaturejohn mcwilliams >Nobody from outside the Bay area is going to have any idea who Herb Caen was. (Raises hand) I have, but I don't know why. I've never lived westcoastly and Caen was not syndicated, but mention Caen and I know he was a Pulitzer-winning columnist...probably because many of his witticisms were picked up by other columnists that I did read. So do you have any idea who Irv Kupcinet was? The two are often compared. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida On 1/26/2010 8:59 PM tony cooper spake thus: >> Nobody from outside the Bay area is going to have any idea who Herb Caen was. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So do you have any idea who Irv Kupcinet was? The two are often > compared. [raises hand] I'm from Chicago; of course I know who Kup was. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" >> Nobody from outside the Bay area is going to have any idea who Herb Caen was. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So do you have any idea who Irv Kupcinet was? The two are often > compared. Without the aid of Google I have to plead ignorance. Chiis one of those places I have only visited a few times and those were brief visits. Even though I have never read him he sounds like another of those vanishing city icons. SignatureRegards, Savageduck >>> Nobody from outside the Bay area is going to have any idea who Herb Caen >>> was. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Even though I have never read him he sounds like another of those > vanishing city icons. I believe Kupcinet had a talk show for a while.....I seem to remember watching him on the TV.....He had a little more personality than Herb Caen, and he would interview guests on his show. > I believe Kupcinet had a talk show for a while... You could say that, if you consider 34 years "a while." He was the emcee for various talk shows from about 1952 through 1986, including a short stint at the "Tonight Show's" predecessor. SignatureMike Benveniste -- mhb@murkyether.com (Clarification Required) Don't succumb to the false authority of a tool or model. There is no substitute for thinking. On 1/28/2010 5:43 AM Michael Benveniste spake thus: >> I believe Kupcinet had a talk show for a while... > > You could say that, if you consider 34 years "a while." He was the > emcee for various talk shows from about 1952 through 1986, including > a short stint at the "Tonight Show's" predecessor. Kup was the archetypal "man about town" in Chicago. Knew everybody who was anybody, and vice versa. Obviously Graham knows nothing about this guy. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > On 1/28/2010 5:43 AM Michael Benveniste spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Kup was the archetypal "man about town" in Chicago. Knew everybody who was > anybody, and vice versa. Obviously Graham knows nothing about this guy. Google knows all......I spoke from personal experience, without consulting Google.....Obviously, a big mistake on this group. I used to work with a guy who watched Irv Kup's show regularly, and I remember that he was a tall guy, so I must have seen him once or twice myself. But, other than that. you're right.....I know, "nothing" about him. >> On 1/28/2010 5:43 AM Michael Benveniste spake thus: > Google knows all......I spoke from personal experience, without consulting > Google.....Obviously, a big mistake on this group. I used to work with a > guy who watched Irv Kup's show regularly, and I remember that he was a > tall guy, so I must have seen him once or twice myself. But, other than > that. you're right.....I know, "nothing" about him. Thinking further along these lines, I wonder how you guys manage to get along without Google? - I mean in normal conversations with ordinary people you might meet on the street, who, like you, are not carrying a computer along with.......Do you ever have such conversations? And, if so, what do you talk about? On 1/28/2010 6:39 PM Bill Graham spake thus: >> Google knows all......I spoke from personal experience, without consulting >> Google.....Obviously, a big mistake on this group. I used to work with a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > carrying a computer along with.......Do you ever have such > conversations? And, if so, what do you talk about? Well, you know, Bill, there are these things called "books" ... SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > On 1/28/2010 6:39 PM Bill Graham spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Well, you know, Bill, there are these things called "books" ... Amazing......You carry, "The Autobiography of Irving Kupcinet" around with you all the time? On 1/26/2010 4:19 PM Bill Graham spake thus: >> On 1/26/2010 3:09 PM Bruce spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> > Velveeta was Herb Cain's favorite film, wasn't it? Herb Caen (note spelling) had a favorite typewriter (Royal), places to eat (Moose's and the Wasbag), and drink (martini?), but so far as I know he had no favorite film. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" >> Velveeta is a type of cheese. Did you mean "Velvia"? > The fact that you had to ask meant that the joke was lost on you, > apparently. Blame me, not the audience. I forgot that usage and slang changes with times and audiences. Anyway, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvia SignatureMike Benveniste -- mhb@murkyether.com (Clarification Required) Don't succumb to the false authority of a tool or model. There is no substitute for thinking. >On 1/26/2010 3:09 PM Bruce spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >The fact that you had to ask meant that the joke was lost on you, >apparently. Yes, it was lost on me. As Winston Churchill once said, the USA and the UK are two nations divided by a common language. ;-) On 1/27/2010 11:36 AM Bruce spake thus: >> On 1/26/2010 3:09 PM Bruce spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > As Winston Churchill once said, the USA and the UK are two nations > divided by a common language. ;-) Whoops, my bad. Mea culpa. I'd forgotten about that whole thing about there being Brits and stuff here; and this just after I recently chided someone on another forum about using a region-specific term (Araldite) that I'd never heard before. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" David Nebenzahl wrote,on my timestamp of 28/01/2010 10:59 AM: > there being Brits and stuff here; and this just after I recently chided > someone on another forum about using a region-specific term (Araldite) > that I'd never heard before. You don't know about Araldite???? Heathen!!! <d&r, vvf> On 1/28/2010 3:00 AM Noons spake thus: > David Nebenzahl wrote,on my timestamp of 28/01/2010 10:59 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Heathen!!! > <d&r, vvf> I could just as easily say to you "You don't know about Skippy?!?!?". Just shows the absurdity of assuming that everyone else knows the brand names you're familiar with (not saying *you* do this, but others do). SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" David Nebenzahl wrote,on my timestamp of 29/01/2010 5:41 AM: >>> there being Brits and stuff here; and this just after I recently >>> chided someone on another forum about using a region-specific term [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I could just as easily say to you "You don't know about Skippy?!?!?". LOL! Buddy: I *eat* Skippy - in sausage form - everytime we do a bbq. One of the best lean meats anyone can get. ;) > Just shows the absurdity of assuming that everyone else knows the brand > names you're familiar with (not saying *you* do this, but others do). Very true. I just found it funny because Araldite is one of those things I grew up with: it found use since a very tender age, fixing fishing rods and all sorts of toys. Didn't even realize it wasn't a universal brand! Ah well, learn until I die, I suppose. On 1/29/2010 5:45 PM Noons spake thus: > David Nebenzahl wrote,on my timestamp of 29/01/2010 5:41 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > One of the best lean meats anyone can get. > ;) Heh; shows how much you know (and makes my point): Skippy here is a brand of peanut butter. Kinda messy on your grill, I'd think. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" >On 1/29/2010 5:45 PM Noons spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Heh; shows how much you know (and makes my point): Skippy here is a >brand of peanut butter. Kinda messy on your grill, I'd think. Oh, I thought "Skippy" was the name of a dog and was wondering about making sausage of him. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > Oh, I thought "Skippy" was the name of a dog and was wondering about > making sausage of him. > > -- He eats Skippy and then he blows Chunks. (Chunks is his other dog.) > I've got four dSLRs, but I miss shooting film, so come Christmas, my mom > wanted me to take pictures so I dusted off my old ElanII, 28-105 lens, and > bought a roll of Kodak Gold ( nothin' particularly fancy about this rig ) > with a 580ex flash took some snaps and had the pictures developed at a local > drugstore. The shots were beautiful, or at least I thought so and so did my > family. After a few years of shooting digital, I've mostly upgraded back to film. I'm enjoying photography more and spending way less money. The myth that digital is so much better than film is easily escaped from by actually trying it. SignatureJeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net Email address in header is valid > After a few years of shooting digital, I've mostly upgraded back to film. > I'm enjoying photography more and spending way less money. How could you be spending way less money? Once you get the camera and cards, shooting digital is essentially free. That's the primary reason I switched to digital in the first place. By the time you buy the film and pay for the processing, you're talking $10-$15 (US) per roll. On 1/26/2010 6:48 AM Annika1980 spake thus: >> After a few years of shooting digital, I've mostly upgraded back to film. >> I'm enjoying photography more and spending way less money. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I switched to digital in the first place. By the time you buy the film > and pay for the processing, you're talking $10-$15 (US) per roll. So what do you print on: ether? You pay nothing for prints? Oh, you never make prints. That explains it. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > > How could you be spending way less money? Once you get the camera and > > cards, shooting digital is essentially free. That's the primary reason [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Oh, you never make prints. That explains it. Print costs at the local photo lab are the same whether printing from digital or film. Now this is where someone is supposed to make the, "Well you gotta have a computer!" argument. >> > How could you be spending way less money? Once you get the camera and >> > cards, shooting digital is essentially free. That's the primary reason [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Now this is where someone is supposed to make the, "Well you gotta >have a computer!" argument. Why? Most places have a machine that you can stick your SD card into, do some limited editing, and order prints. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida On Jan 26, 2:52 pm, David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote: > > How could you be spending way less money? Once you get the camera and > > cards, shooting digital is essentially free. That's the primary reason [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Oh, you never make prints. That explains it. Print costs at the local photo lab are the same whether printing from digital or film. Now this is where someone is supposed to make the, "Well you gotta have a computer!" argument. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Print costs in my darkroom are substantially less than the photolab. And as for the "you gotta have a computer" argument, I gotta have a darkroom, which if I had bought new, would have been substantially more expensive. But my darkroom is upgraded just by using the latest film, chemicals, or paper (consumables). Your computer is upgraded by replacing it. I stand by my argumrnt that digital is not cheaper than film, and I am willing to compare 20"x24" prints any time. Ken >> After a few years of shooting digital, I've mostly upgraded back to film. >> I'm enjoying photography more and spending way less money. ? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I switched to digital in the first place. By the time you buy the film > and pay for the processing, you're talking $10-$15 (US) per roll. If you shoot a whole lot -- and you still would with film -- then that's perfectly valid. But "once you get the camera" is thousands of dollars, and that camera then becomes obsolete and you end up wanting a new one in a mere few years, and that's a whole lot of film and processing. I'm spending less money because once I got a couple of secondhand film cameras that will never become obsolete in perfect condition for a couple hundred bucks, and a decent film scanner, I was still ahead by enough to pay for years worth of film and processing, versus buying that new DSLR I was contemplating. (Processing is somewhat cheaper than you indicate if you do it yourself, too.) There are other good reasons to use digital anyway, of course. I still use digital for landscapes, for the clean enlargements, but I suspect that if I had medium format film gear I wouldn't see much need for that. SignatureJeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net Email address in header is valid On Jan 26, 1:37 am, Jeremy Nixon <~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> wrote: > After a few years of shooting digital, I've mostly upgraded back to film. > I'm enjoying photography more and spending way less money. How could you be spending way less money? Once you get the camera and cards, shooting digital is essentially free. That's the primary reason I switched to digital in the first place. By the time you buy the film and pay for the processing, you're talking $10-$15 (US) per roll. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- _Shooting_ digital is essentially free, but if you are going to make prints, then there is cost involoved. The $10-15 for processing gets you prints (or slides, depending of course on your film). But let's look at the whole cost picture: My mechanical cameras range in age from 5 years to 45 years old. Each of them cost one-half to one-fourth the price of a digital camera with similar capability; assuming there exists a digital camera that can match 6x7cm or 4x5" format. To go with your digital camera, you will need a computer to do the post-processing and a printer to print the photos (or send them to a processor and pay nearly the same as a film shooter). This gear needs to periodically be upgraded. Every time I reload the film, I can 'upgrade' the image sensor in my film camera, so my forty year old Canon FX is capable of using the most modern (film) imaging technology. The only way to uograde a five year old digital camera is to scrap it and buy a new one. You can shoot all the pictures you want with minimal expense in batteries and memory cards, but printing the shots is another matter- cost. And that cost is very close to the cost of film shooting. > You can shoot all the pictures you want with minimal expense in batteries > and memory cards, but printing the shots is another matter- cost. And that > cost is very close to the cost of film shooting. I agree. For me, that cost is exactly that of prints from film. That's why I wasn't even including the cost of printing in my calculations. But since you brought it up, printing is even more costly with film (if you have prints made to start with) since you are printing the whole roll. I just love paying $4.35 for a roll of Ektar 100 and then another few bucks for processing and another $7+ for 4x6 prints, only to find out that the damn things are all pink or blue. With digital, you only have to print the keepers. I also love the fact that even though I still have to go to the photo store to pick up my prints, I now only have to make one trip instead of two since I upload them online. No more dropping off the film and then trying to kill an hour while they are being developed. Having said all that, I still shoot the occasional roll of Ektar or Astia, just to keep the Fabulous EOS-1V happy. But after I get the prints and pay for them, I always ask myself why I bothered. Not only do I get better pics with my Fab 5D2, I get a helluva lot more of them. IMO, the ONLY area where film trumps digital is when well-exposed slides are projected onto a big screen or viewed on a light table with a good loupe. I've never used a digital projector so it's possible that digital could even match film in that area. > Having said all that, I still shoot the occasional roll of Ektar or > Astia, just to keep the Fabulous EOS-1V happy. But after I get the > prints and pay for them, I always ask myself why I bothered. > Not only do I get better pics with my Fab 5D2, I get a helluva lot > more of them. On the other hand, you wouldn't judge the quality of your Fab 5D2 by what the drugstore can do with the pictures, so why is that appropriate for film? SignatureJeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net Email address in header is valid On Jan 26, 6:26 pm, "K W Hart" <kwha...@verizon.net> wrote: > You can shoot all the pictures you want with minimal expense in batteries > and memory cards, but printing the shots is another matter- cost. And that > cost is very close to the cost of film shooting. I agree. For me, that cost is exactly that of prints from film. That's why I wasn't even including the cost of printing in my calculations. But since you brought it up, printing is even more costly with film (if you have prints made to start with) since you are printing the whole roll. I just love paying $4.35 for a roll of Ektar 100 and then another few bucks for processing and another $7+ for 4x6 prints, only to find out that the damn things are all pink or blue. With digital, you only have to print the keepers. I also love the fact that even though I still have to go to the photo store to pick up my prints, I now only have to make one trip instead of two since I upload them online. No more dropping off the film and then trying to kill an hour while they are being developed. Having said all that, I still shoot the occasional roll of Ektar or Astia, just to keep the Fabulous EOS-1V happy. But after I get the prints and pay for them, I always ask myself why I bothered. Not only do I get better pics with my Fab 5D2, I get a helluva lot more of them. IMO, the ONLY area where film trumps digital is when well-exposed slides are projected onto a big screen or viewed on a light table with a good loupe. I've never used a digital projector so it's possible that digital could even match film in that area. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Compare apples to apples. You only print the frames you want with digital, so only print the frames you want with film. Then the film processing cost comes down. If my prints (from an outside processor) were coing out pink or blue, I'd probably start printing them myself. But wait, that's what I do, so it's not likely that they are going to come out pink or blue. You can't really compare prints made by the modern minilabs, because the film is scanned and printed by a lightjet type printer. But I will compare prints made from film by an optical system- big enlargements made optically from a film neg will make digital look sick. Ken > But let's look at the whole cost picture: My mechanical cameras range in age > from 5 years to 45 years old. Each of them cost one-half to one-fourth the > price of a digital camera with similar capability; assuming there exists a > digital camera that can match 6x7cm or 4x5" format. For example, from 65 years ago: http://www.ww2incolor.com/news/images/1221.jpg or 147 years ago, even before film: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundatio n/gettysburg/confederate-prisoners.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.sonofthesouth.net/le efoundation/gettysburg/confederate-prisoners.htm&usg=__D6XV9TRXv9EE_dpQ2wuB7rm7q Ks=&h=922&w=1000&sz=182&hl=en&start=25&tbnid=eFuG-8BWy9T0IM:&tbnh=137&tbnw=149&p rev=/images%3Fq%3Dgettysburg%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26s a%3DN%26start%3D18 snip >or 147 years ago, even before film: > >http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundatio n/gettysburg/confederate-prisoners.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.sonofthesouth.net/le efoundation/gettysburg/confederate-prisoners.htm&usg=__D6XV9TRXv9EE_dpQ2wuB7rm7q Ks=&h=922&w=1000&sz=182&hl=en&start=25&tbnid=eFuG-8BWy9T0IM:&tbnh=137&tbnw=149&p rev=/images%3Fq%3Dgettysburg%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26s a%3DN%26start%3D18 I have seen that photo before, but it always amazes me. It looks as if it could have been taken yesterday. > On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:02:18 -0800 (PST), "pbromag...@aol.com" > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I have seen that photo before, but it always amazes me. It looks as > if it could have been taken yesterday. Do you mean the pic of the prisoners? Google shortened the link I actually posted and that one comes up. I meant to show another, even more extraordinary portrait in that website. If you follow it again, click on "The hero of Gettysburg" above the photo. Double click on that pic and it pops out at high res. Amazing detail. He'a a little guy with the huge, gnarled hands of a pre-industrial farmer. He was a 70-year old resident of Gettysburg and veteran of the war of 1812 who joined a Wisconsin regiment during the battle (his wife did not approve), killed at least 3 Confederates and was wounded 3 times. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 27/01/2010 1:48 AM: >> After a few years of shooting digital, I've mostly upgraded back to film. >> I'm enjoying photography more and spending way less money. > > How could you be spending way less money? Once you get the camera and > cards, shooting digital is essentially free. Did you include the price of upgrading that dslr every two years? Of course not! > That's the primary reason > I switched to digital in the first place. No it wasn't. >By the time you buy the film > and pay for the processing, you're talking $10-$15 (US) per roll. Nonsense. > > How could you be spending way less money? Once you get the camera and > > cards, shooting digital is essentially free. > > Did you include the price of upgrading that dslr every two years? > Of course not! Yes, I did. > > That's the primary reason > > I switched to digital in the first place. > > No it wasn't. Oh really? Then maybe you can tell me why I switched. Are you that stupid to think that you know my motivations and reasoning more than I do? >>> How could you be spending way less money? Once you get the camera and >>> cards, shooting digital is essentially free. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Are you that stupid to think that you know my motivations and > reasoning more than I do? Yes, he is. Signaturejohn mcwilliams John McWilliams wrote,on my timestamp of 28/01/2010 3:04 AM: > Yes, he is. Stay out of things too deep for your feeble mind, moron. > >By the time you buy the film > > > and pay for the processing, you're talking $10-$15 (US) per roll. > > Nonsense. Nonsense my a.s! Do the f.cking math. Astia is $5.80 per roll from B&H. I can get it developed for $11. That's $16.80 not counting taxes or shipping. Print film is slightly cheaper. Ektar 100 is $4.35 a roll. Developing is a few bucks more, but if you want to see what you have you either have to order prints (+$7) or a cheap CD ($6). So what do you pay? Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 28/01/2010 2:06 AM: >> >By the time you buy the film >>> and pay for the processing, you're talking $10-$15 (US) per roll. >> Nonsense. > > Nonsense my a.s! Do the f.cking math. I don't need to. Perhaps it'll penetrate your thick skull that pricing structures in the backwater you live in are not the *same* for the rest of the world. Here is a hint: you want to live in a backwater, that is your problem! The rest of the world goes on, blissfully ignoring your problems. > Astia is $5.80 per roll from B&H. Astia is A$5 where I buy it. > I can get it developed for $11. That's you, in the dump you live in. I get mine developed for A$8. > That's $16.80 not counting taxes or shipping. I don't do shipping either. Just drop it in and pick it up, during my lunch break. Not my fault if you got no clue how to make film use cheaper. Not film's fault, either. > Developing is a few bucks more, but if you want to see what you have > you either have to order prints (+$7) or a cheap CD ($6). Nope. I don't need those. But ocasionally I ask them for one of those prints with all the photos in thumbnails. They're handy to judge the overall balance of the film. One print. > So what do you pay? Do the maths with the above. Don't bother, I know it's all too hard for you to understand there is something else in the world than your backwater. Suffice to say it is just under US$10. Don't forget that A$ is *not* the same as US$. One day you'll learn the dump you live in is no standard for the rest of the world. >> After a few years of shooting digital, I've mostly upgraded back to film. >> I'm enjoying photography more and spending way less money. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I switched to digital in the first place. By the time you buy the film > and pay for the processing, you're talking $10-$15 (US) per roll. With bulk B&W and self processing? No way! More like under $1 (equivalent). And, even if found after being forgotten 100+ years in an attic, the negatives will probably still be fully usable. On Jan 27, 10:11 am, Rol_Lei Nut <Speleo_Karstlens...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > How could you be spending way less money? Once you get the camera and > > cards, shooting digital is essentially free. That's the primary reason [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > More like under $1 (equivalent). Who shoots B&W besides art fags? > On Jan 27, 10:11 am, Rol_Lei Nut <Speleo_Karstlens...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Who shoots B&W besides art fags? No comment necessary... >> I've got four dSLRs, but I miss shooting film, so come Christmas, my mom >> wanted me to take pictures so I dusted off my old ElanII, 28-105 lens, and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > digital is so much better than film is easily escaped from by actually > trying it. What were you shooting with in your digital moments? For me, digital is way better than film, and after an initial investment in a couple of bodies and great lenses, I have only depreciation/wear "expense". That's in no way saying you can't be happy switching back, but it's your definition of "better". Signaturejohn mcwilliams >> After a few years of shooting digital, I've mostly upgraded back to film. >> I'm enjoying photography more and spending way less money. The myth that >> digital is so much better than film is easily escaped from by actually >> trying it. > > What were you shooting with in your digital moments? Nikon D2x. I still use it, of course, when I need its particular strengths. Honestly, when I first took up film again I thought it was just a fun side project and that I'd be getting a D700 or whatever shortly, but I ended up not even bringing the digital along much of the time. > For me, digital is way better than film, and after an initial investment > in a couple of bodies and great lenses, I have only depreciation/wear > "expense". Even with just that, amortize those cameras over however many rolls of film you'd shoot with a $100 film body that you never have to replace because it will never become obsolete. Making digital cheaper requires either shooting quite a lot, or using second-rate digital cameras. Of course, some people really do shoot that much. And there are certainly other advantages to using digital, which I fully appreciate. SignatureJeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net Email address in header is valid > > What were you shooting with in your digital moments? > > Nikon D2x. Well, that explains it then. Nikon. No wonder your digital pics sucked. > Even with just that, amortize those cameras over however many rolls of > film you'd shoot with a $100 film body that you never have to replace > because it will never become obsolete. I used to shoot about 3 rolls a week on average. At that rate I could buy a new $2K digital camera every year for what I spent in film +processing costs. And I'm just an amateur. I'd hate to think what a pro could save. > Even with just that, amortize those cameras over however many rolls of > film you'd shoot with a $100 film body that you never have to replace > because it will never become obsolete. Well, actually it's because it *already* obsolete. With a Pentax, purchased in 1982 and an inherited Minolta outfit (body + several lenses) I go on my merry way. My wife is on her 3rd digital in 6 years. She does take a lot more shots and gets a lot more good ones. I figure to get 2-5 images worth scanning out of a roll of 36. > Making digital cheaper requires either shooting quite a lot, or using > second-rate digital cameras. Of course, some people really do shoot > that much. And there are certainly other advantages to using digital, > which I fully appreciate. Ink and good paper ain't cheap. > After a few years of shooting digital, I've mostly upgraded back to film. > I'm enjoying photography more and spending way less money. The myth that > digital is so much better than film is easily escaped from by actually > trying it. Jeremy, wasn't it you who said "The higher resolution and overall better image quality of digital has made the need for a tripod even more clear. I didn't realize that a tripod would make a difference even at 1/125sec and wide angle, but it does. I use it a lot more with digital. " Scott >> After a few years of shooting digital, I've mostly upgraded back to film. >> I'm enjoying photography more and spending way less money. ?The myth that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > tripod would make a difference even at 1/125sec and wide angle, but it > does. I use it a lot more with digital. " Yes. I readily admit to having drunk the digital Kool-Aid. That was before running film through a *good* scanner and seeing what comes out the other end. SignatureJeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net Email address in header is valid >>> After a few years of shooting digital, I've mostly upgraded back to >>> film. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > That was before running film through a *good* scanner and seeing what > comes out the other end. You mean I shouldn't sell my $2000 F5 back to B&H for $300, and use it for a down payment on a D2 after all? > > Jeremy, wasn't it you who said > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That was before running film through a *good* scanner and seeing what > comes out the other end. Yeah. Grain. High-res scanners just make the grain bigger. You really don't gain much detail by scanning at a higher res (4000-5400). But moving to a higher megapixel digital camera will show added detail. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 27/01/2010 4:34 PM: >> That was before running film through a *good* scanner and seeing what >> comes out the other end. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > much detail by scanning at a higher res (4000-5400). But moving to a > higher megapixel digital camera will show added detail. Load of nonsense, as usual. >> After a few years of shooting digital, I've mostly upgraded back to film. >> I'm enjoying photography more and spending way less money. The myth that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >would make a difference even at 1/125sec and wide angle, but it does. I use >it a lot more with digital. " That's the kind of thing people say when they need to convince themselves that the $100s or $1000s of dollars they just expended on digital equipment was money well spent. People will go to almost any lengths to avoid Buyer's Remorse. ;-) > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:38:50 -0800 (PST), Scott W > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > digital equipment was money well spent. People will go to almost any > lengths to avoid Buyer's Remorse. ;-) So how do we know his current thinking is not because he just dropped a lot of money on a new film scanner? I bought by first film scanner when I was my digital camera was 1.2 MP, I paid twice as much for the scanner as I paid for my digital camera. The scanner was an HP Photosmart S20 which a resolution of 2400 ppi. This gave scans that were close to 8 MP, which compared to digital cameras of 2000 was pretty impressive. This was scanned on it close to 10 years ago http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4307348777/sizes/o/ So I started out more heavily invested in film then digital, but digital cameras got better and when I got one that had 3 MP I found that for many things I liked the shots from it more. The film scans were still better when printing 8x10 in prints but when viewed on a computer screen I preferred the images from my Nikon 995. The digital images had better color, a lot less noise and better shadow details. Once I got a 8 MP digital there was no more reason to shoot 35mm for me. I had some of my film shots scanned at 4000 ppi, and they did show more detail then my 8MP digital, but the images just did not look that good, again too much noise and lost detail in the shadows, the over all effect is that whereas the film photos had captured more detail the digital photos looked sharper. Now I am using a 50D that has 15 MP and I doubt that I could match its resolution using color film, I don’t really need 15 MP often, but that is what mid range DSLRs seems to be at right now. A photo from the 50D http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4307411531/sizes/o/ Compare that to the film scan and you notice that the 50D image has different textures whereas the film scan seems to have one texture over the whole image. > So how do we know his current thinking is not because he just dropped > a lot of money on a new film scanner? Well, the film scanner was a bit less than a thousand dollars: certainly the most expensive piece of gear in the mix, but a fraction of the cost of a high-end DSLR. (And you'd need a top-end DSLR to match the image quality.) > Once I got a 8 MP digital there was no more reason to shoot 35mm for > me. Preferring the result is surely a valid reason to choose any medium. Far be it from me to suggest otherwise. SignatureJeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net Email address in header is valid Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 27/01/2010 1:01 PM: > camera. The scanner was an HP Photosmart S20 which a resolution of > 2400 ppi. This gave scans that were close to 8 MP, which compared to > digital cameras of 2000 was pretty impressive. > > This was scanned on it close to 10 years ago > http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4307348777/sizes/o/ and of course, you have not upgraded neither your film nor your scanner nor your post-processing. > So I started out more heavily invested in film then digital, but > digital cameras got better and when I got one that had 3 MP I found > that for many things I liked the shots from it more. The film scans > were still better when printing 8x10 in prints but when viewed on a > computer screen I preferred the images from my Nikon 995. The digital > images had better color, a lot less noise and better shadow details. You upgraded your digital gear, you have not upgraded your film gear, therefore film must be worse than digital. Obviously! It makes as much sense as claiming that your 1950s diesel Bedford is slower than your BMW because the BMW runs with petrol. But feel free to continue that reasoning... > Once I got a 8 MP digital there was no more reason to shoot 35mm for > me. Did you ever try to upgrade your film, your scanner and your scanning skills as well? Of course not! > I had some of my film shots scanned at 4000 ppi, and they did > show more detail then my 8MP digital, but the images just did not look > that good, again too much noise and lost detail in the shadows, the > over all effect is that whereas the film photos had captured more > detail the digital photos looked sharper. And of course you assumed the third party doing the scans was the absolute best and you never questioned their processes or if they were taking good advantage of the scanner and/or film. > Now I am using a 50D that has 15 MP and I doubt that I could match > its resolution using color film, I don’t really need 15 MP often, but > that is what mid range DSLRs seems to be at right now. Anytime, Scott: I'll pulverize your 15MP resolution and I don't even need to go for best rez film. Of course: I refuse to measure results with your ridiculous downress-upress-jpgs "resolution test". > A photo from the 50D > http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4307411531/sizes/o/ No. It's a *composite* photo from the 50D which you have made out of stitched images. I know what a 15Mp dslr can do, Scott: enough of your fakes. > Compare that to the film scan What the heck for? To verify that a modern car is faster than a Bedford? > Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 27/01/2010 1:01 PM: > No. It's a *composite* photo from the 50D which you have made out of stitched > images. I know what a 15Mp dslr can do, Scott: enough of your fakes. Care to bet is that photo is a composite, does it look too good to be digital? As it happens I shoot raw, so I can post the raw file that produced that photo. So here is the jpeg http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4307411531/sizes/o/ Here is the raw file that produced the jpeg. http://sewcon.com/raw/IMG_0037.CR2 The file was converted using Canon’s Digital Photo Professional version 3.6.0.0, which is not all that great of a raw converter but it came with the camera and I am cheap. The raw converter saves the raw setting in the raw file so anyone with Canon’s raw converter should be able to get exactly the same jpeg as I did, if they set the image quality to 6 when they convert it. Scott > > Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 27/01/2010 1:01 PM: > > No. It's a *composite* photo from the 50D which you have made out of stitched [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that photo. > So here is the jpeg http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4307411531/sizes/o/ > Here is the raw file that produced the jpeg. http://sewcon.com/raw/IMG_0037.CR2 PWNED! > > Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 27/01/2010 1:01 PM: > > No. It's a *composite* photo from the 50D which you have made out of stitched [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So here is the jpeghttp://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4307411531/sizes/o/ > Here is the raw file that produced the jpeg.http://sewcon.com/raw/IMG_0037.CR2 Hey Scott, have you ever tried shooting that scene as Noons suggests with a longer FL and then compositing the shots? I'm curious as to how it would compare to your original shot once you downsized it to match the dimensions of the original pic. Obviously, at the larger size it would show even greater detail. Noons is gonna choke when he realizes that that pic was taken with a $100 lens. > > > Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 27/01/2010 1:01 PM: > > > No. It's a *composite* photo from the 50D which you have made out of stitched [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Noons is gonna choke when he realizes that that pic was taken with a > $100 lens. That was not a $100 lens, I paid $70 for it as I recall, great lens. Somewhere I have a stitched version of the shot, using a longer lens, I will see it I can find it. Scott > > > Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 27/01/2010 1:01 PM: > > > No. It's a *composite* photo from the 50D which you have made out of stitched [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Noons is gonna choke when he realizes that that pic was taken with a > $100 lens. Here is a crop from the single shot compared to a stitched image using a 200mm lens, which the stitched one down sized to match. http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4309815494/sizes/o/ The stitched image is cleaner and has more detail, but you have to look pretty close to see the differences. Scott > Here is a crop from the single shot compared to a stitched image > using a 200mm lens, which the stitched one down sized to match.http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4309815494/sizes/o/ > The stitched image is cleaner and has more detail, but you have to > look pretty close to see the differences. > > Scott How many years are there between those shots? On Jan 28, 11:12 am, "pbromag...@aol.com" <pbromag...@aol.com> wrote: > > Here is a crop from the single shot compared to a stitched image > > using a 200mm lens, which the stitched one down sized to match.http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4309815494/sizes/o/ [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How many years are there between those shots? About 3.5 years. Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 27/01/2010 11:57 PM: > Care to bet is that photo is a composite, does it look too good to be > digital? Sorry, Scott. That phrase as worded makes no sense whatsoever to me, buddy. > As it happens I shoot raw, so I can post the raw file that produced > that photo. So what? > So here is the jpeg > http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4307411531/sizes/o/ > Here is the raw file that produced the jpeg. > http://sewcon.com/raw/IMG_0037.CR2 And your point? Oh, you expect me to download a Canon file into my puter? Nope: it ain't gonna happen. > The file was converted using Canon’s Digital Photo Professional > version 3.6.0.0, which is not all that great of a raw converter but it > came with the camera and I am cheap. Hmmm, indeed it is not that great. But I'll explain why, a bit later. Speaking of raw converters: what's your opinion of the Phase One Capture One? I'm trialling it and liking what I see a lot! > The raw converter saves the raw > setting in the raw file so anyone with Canon’s raw converter should be > able to get exactly the same jpeg as I did, if they set the image > quality to 6 when they convert it. Sorry, totally Canon agnostic here. Wouldn't have a clue what that means. Here is something for you to ponder, though. A very small crop of your image at lifesize: http://www.flickr.com/photos/11256029@N00/4310523939/in/set-72157623175252697/ Marvelous definition, isn't it? Clearly delineated "62", all hunky dory, ain't Canon's dslr imaging great? Now, blow it up to say 150% size. If you use Firefox, there is an add-on that lets you do that right on the browser. That 62 is still perfect, so is the rectangle frame around it. But shewt, the rest of that street post is now fuzzy as heck! How come? How come one area of the photo is all u-beaut and right next to it everything is now all of a sudden fuzzy? Hey, it's the same rectilinear shape in the post as it is in the frame! Why is one fuzzy and the other not? Hint: check how it is fuzzy on the edge adjacent to the grass and not fuzzy on the edge adjacent to the road. Want more? There is more. Here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/11256029@N00/4310526217/sizes/o/in/set-721576231752 52697/ Now, what the heck is that? A palm leaf? LOL! I call it mush. Digital mush. It's what happens when the crap processor in the camera tries hard to over-compensate the Bayer filter lack of definition on greens. In simpler words: your camera is "15Mp" only in market pamphlet pixel count, it's got nothing to do with real full colour image units. And it breaks down precisely on the pure greens. Try it: blow it up to 150%. U-G-L-Y! And yet on the very same crop, where the background is a white wall, it all mysteriously goes back to "high definition" again! Or at least, something that is much higher definition than that ugly green mush that is the palm leaf. The Digic processor algorithm at work, again. You see: when I want to claim 15Mp in film, I show it across *the entire image*. All pixels have the same definition, the same colour depth. No exceptions. Not just where the contrast is propitious, which is what the Canon Digic processor does, and the DPP software amplifies. That is precisely why I have to laugh when you digital heads come up with the "film is 6Mp and digital is 15Mp" utter nonsense. Dude, get this: I do *regularly* in excess of 12Mp with 400ISO film, across the *entire* frame, all of those pixels at *full* rez and distinct from one another. No exceptions anywhere, no matter what colour is there in the image, no matter what contrast I got. Full 15Mp across the entire frame. It's not "12Mp for anything not green and 6Mp for anything green, except if on a contrast background where we can go for broke", as the Digic algorithm says. Got it? Why I have to laugh at your "15Mp"? And the "22Mp" of the 5d2? Across the *entire* frame. Not just in bits and pieces. Depending on which colours are in the image. When the 5d2 came out, I pointed to this edge contrast exaggeration issue with the Digic processor right here in this newsgroup. And showed clear examples, with crops. As usual, the "experts" here didn't even fathom what the problem was, let alone understand its effects and why. What was important was to take lots of videos with a static surveillance camera look. Yeah, right: the "convergence" nonsense. As if... By the looks of it, the 50D suffers from exactly the same problem. Not surprised at all. But don't let that stop you enjoying your "15Mp". Here and there. Meanwhile, allow me to enjoy my full 22Mp film resolution, across the *ENTIRE* frame and with all pixels in full colour, thank you very much! Oh and yes: I know that *full* 15Mp is plenty enough. I rarely use more than 10 nowadays, even though I scan at a full 4000dpi. You know why? Man, real 22Mp post-processed with NI and FM and downressed to 10Mp looks absolutely *magic*! And I don't need more than that for a good 8X10 that gets most jaws clacking on the ground. Of course, it's good to have a reserve up my sleeve! Which I do have. But that is another story. ;) Don't get me started on the utter nonsense of "24Mp is enough to replace MF": it only shows the total, utter ignorance of those who claim it... > Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 27/01/2010 11:57 PM: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > And your point? Oh, you expect me to download a Canon file into my puter? > Nope: it ain't gonna happen. The point is you claimed my image was a composite, a photo made by stitching a number of photos together and then down sizing to make a sharper looking image. Posting the raw file shows this is not the case. > > The file was converted using Canon’s Digital Photo Professional > > version 3.6.0.0, which is not all that great of a raw converter but it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Speaking of raw converters: what's your opinion of the Phase One Capture One? > I'm trialling it and liking what I see a lot! I have not used Phase One Capture One, I did like Light Room when I was using a trail version of that and might buy a copy at some point in time. > > The raw converter saves the raw > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > How come? How come one area of the photo is all u-beaut and right next to it > everything is now all of a sudden fuzzy? Once you found out the photo was from a single frame then you started to find flaws, when viewed at 150%, gee I am pretty happy if my photos look good at 100% My monitor’s resolution is right around 95ppi, so my image when viewed at 100% would be 50 x 33 inches, but you want people to view it at 150%, which would be 75 x 50 inches, wow. > But don't let that stop you enjoying your "15Mp". Here and there. > > Meanwhile, allow me to enjoy my full 22Mp film resolution, across the *ENTIRE* > frame and with all pixels in full colour, thank you very much! I have not seen a 22 MP 35mm scan from you, I have seen a 21MP however, and to my eye it looks soft at the pixel level. Here is one of yours http://sewcon.com/noons/high_quality_jpeg.jpg If you really think that looks sharp when viewed at 100% then film is clearly for you. Scott > Oh and yes: I know that *full* 15Mp is plenty enough. I rarely use more than 10 > nowadays, even though I scan at a full 4000dpi. > > You know why? Man, real 22Mp post-processed with NI and FM and downressed to > 10Mp looks absolutely *magic*! And I don't need more than that for a good 8X10 > that gets most jaws clacking on the ground. If you have something new that is sharper then what I posted feel free to up load it, I have seen sharper 35mm film shots then what you have posted in the past, perhaps you have something sharper now? Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 28/01/2010 10:28 PM: > The point is you claimed my image was a composite, a photo made by > stitching a number of photos together and then down sizing to make a > sharper looking image. Posting the raw file shows this is not the > case. I couldn't care less about posting raw files, Scott. Canon or otherwise. They mean nothing to me. I don't spend time agonizing over raw files, they just get processed to a pleasing image. > Once you found out the photo was from a single frame then you started > to find flaws, when viewed at 150%, gee I am pretty happy if my photos > look good at 100% I found the flaws straight away, and I still haven't "found out" that it was a single frame. And once again, you - intentionally? - totally miss the point, Scott. The problem is not a flaw at 150%. The problem is the completely uneven resolution in that shot. Some areas - the ones you like to point out, like the street numbers - are perfect and at the expected resolution, others are absolute mush. When I see a digital shot - Canon or otherwise - that looks consistent with the claimed resolution across the *entire* frame, I'll believe I'm looking at the claimed image quality. Until then, I prefer the even resolution of film, with no surprises. > My monitor’s resolution is right around 95ppi, so my image when viewed > at 100% would be 50 x 33 inches, but you want people to view it at > 150%, which would be 75 x 50 inches, wow. No, I don't want anyone to view it at 150%, never claimed such. But I'll show and point out the uneven resolution of that shot, using whatever magnification is needed to perfectly demonstrate it. There is a difference between a demonstration and asking folks to look at it at a given magnification, and you know perfectly well what I mean so don't try to wordsmith out of it. > I have not seen a 22 MP 35mm scan from you, I have seen a 21MP > however, and to my eye it looks soft at the pixel level. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you really think that looks sharp when viewed at 100% then film is > clearly for you. I'm glad you pulled out something I did years ago. You see, Scott: unlike you and the other "film experts" around here, my workflow and what I do with my film and scanners has not stopped in time. It has progressed. Reminds me to go and redo that one with my current workflow, it'll blow your socks off. Stay tuned. > If you have something new that is sharper then what I posted feel free > to up load it, I have seen sharper 35mm film shots then what you have > posted in the past, perhaps you have something sharper now? Perhaps. One never knows. Funny though, you have "seen" sharper 35mm film shots than mine but you have never been able to produce evidence of such. Interesting theory... > Perhaps. One never knows. Funny though, you have "seen" sharper 35mm film > shots than mine but you have never been able to produce evidence of such. > Interesting theory... I think this one is sharper then yours, more noise for sure but to my eye sharper http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/Tabert_crop_1000.jpg Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/01/2010 1:43 PM: >> Perhaps. One never knows. Funny though, you have "seen" sharper 35mm film >> shots than mine but you have never been able to produce evidence of such. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > eye sharper > http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/Tabert_crop_1000.jpg That one is not one of your images, just to clarify Brett's usual stupid comments. And it is far from sharp. That photo has been sharpened to enhance the grain and noise. Those were sharpened. Not the image under it, which is as fuzzy as can get. One day you will learn that the crap done 15 years ago does not stand as justification for what is being done now. > Perhaps. One never knows. Funny though, you have "seen" sharper 35mm film > shots than mine but you have never been able to produce evidence of such. > Interesting theory... Scott has posted many images that are sharper than anything you've yet produced. Your response is to accuse him of using stitched images like someone else I know has been known to do. Then when he posts the original RAW file you claim that you still haven't seen the proof because you can't be bothered to look at it. So, Noons, when are you going to post something to impress us? I've got a pic that will knock you on your a.s. Wanna see it? > > Perhaps. One never knows. Funny though, you have "seen" sharper 35mm film > > shots than mine but you have never been able to produce evidence of such. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So, Noons, when are you going to post something to impress us? I've > got a pic that will knock you on your a.s. Wanna see it? What I really love is he says this "No. It's a *composite* photo from the 50D which you have made out of stitched images. I know what a 15Mp dslr can do, Scott: enough of your fakes. " Clearly the photo was much sharper then he thought a 50D could do, after all he says he knows what a 15Mp dslr can do, but then when I post the raw he says the photo was not all that sharp, right. clearly Noons you had no idea of what a 15 MP DSLR can do, but now you do. Scott >>> Perhaps. One never knows. Funny though, you have "seen" sharper 35mm film >>> shots than mine but you have never been able to produce evidence of such. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > clearly Noons you had no idea of what a 15 MP DSLR can do, but now you > do. To be fair, you have posted stitched downsized composites before without indicating that. BTW, my computer melted down and I'm on a loaner now so all my filters are gone. I didn't realize noons is actually a photog with experience, I had plonked him as a frequent sniper in the regular silly arguments here. > > On Jan 30, 3:18 pm, Annika1980<annika1...@aol.com> wrote: > >> On Jan 29, 8:38 pm, Noons<wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > with experience, I had plonked him as a frequent sniper in the regular > silly arguments here Oh, I don't mind someone questioning whether my image was stitched, but Noons pretty much said it had to be because he "knows what a 15Mp dslr can do". I don't mind posting the raw image to show that in fact it is from one frame. But once Noons found out that it was from one frame it went from it has to be stitched because a 50D can't capture that detail in one shot, to it really did not capture the detail very well. There are a lot of people who judge image very differently depending on if they believe the image came from film or digital. Scott Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 31/01/2010 2:26 PM: > Oh, I don't mind someone questioning whether my image was stitched, > but Noons pretty much said it had to be because he "knows what a 15Mp > dslr can do". Exactly. And I know you do post stitched images as if they were originals, many times. > I don't mind posting the raw image to show that in fact > it is from one frame. Good for you. > But once Noons found out that it was from one > frame it went from it has to be stitched because a 50D can't capture > that detail in one shot, to it really did not capture the detail very > well. So, let me see: if it had been stitched - which I wouldn't bother looking at - you wouldn't mind the questioning. But because it was not as you "proved" by posting the raw file, I am not entitled to then look at it and clearly point out where and why I don't think it is 15Mp? Which I did. You really have a weird way of arguing, Scott. Ever tried rational argumentation? You know, some folks swear by it. I'm not surprised you consider half-fuzzy roofs as true 15Mp digital imaging... Not even going into real detail anymore, those two were enough. Thank the gods you actually posted the stitched image so we could all see what the roof tiles look like. Otherwise I'm sure Brett would jump in swearing they look just like that... > There are a lot of people who judge image very differently depending > on if they believe the image came from film or digital. Indeed. Starting with you, Scott. Paul Furman wrote,on my timestamp of 31/01/2010 1:30 PM: > To be fair, you have posted stitched downsized composites before without > indicating that. Nonono, that's not how it works, Paul! The normal sequence is for Scott to dump on film as being unable to go past 6Mpixels. Then he's shown an image that clearly has much more than 6Mp across the entire frame, not just in choice spots. Which he promptly disses as "soft" and "dirty" (note the "detergent ad" similarity, oldest trick in the book) and downresses-upresses the jpg to "prove it has no detail". Never mind it's a jpg, and that's what jpg compression does, it destroys detail: already gone before he down-upresses! Of course: that is one detail about the entire "process" Scott is happy to lose... Then when he's shown he doesn't have a clue what film does nowadays, he jumps in with a "perfect" digital image to "prove" that digital is "better than film". Invariably, that "perfect" digital image is a stitched one. This is the pattern. It's happened before, many times. That's why I don't bother looking at the crap "evidence" he produces. Boring.... Must be time to drum up some more Canon business, eh Scott? Sales numbers last year must have hurt... Just exactly how many new Canon dslr sales you think you're gonna get from drumming up the old "film is dirty" chestnut? May I suggest Canon boys concentrate on producing technology to counter micro4/3: it's the real "enemy", you know? Not film. > BTW, my computer melted down and I'm on a loaner now so > all my filters are gone. I didn't realize noons is actually a photog > with experience, I had plonked him as a frequent sniper in the regular > silly arguments here. Hey, you want to believe the nonsense Brett y sus muchachos put out about anyone who uncovers their lies, it's your choice. Meanwhile real photographers go on about their business, quietly ignoring these Usenet newsgroups. Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 31/01/2010 12:52 PM: > Clearly the photo was much sharper then he thought a 50D could do, > after all he says he knows what a 15Mp dslr can do, but then when I > post the raw he says the photo was not all that sharp, right. Indeed. And I am glad you point out the 50D. One would think one of your "perfect" 15Mp cameras would do a better job of showing roof tiles than this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/11256029@N00/4318740768/in/set-72157623175252697/ or this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/11256029@N00/4318007575/in/set-72157623175252697/ What the heck happened to the tiles on the left slopes? Oh let me guess: they look like that, it's me who is imagining things? Of course: we are supposed to imagine that tiles get fuzzy if facing left, is it? Hey, blow it up to full size and look. But *look*, don't just imagine. Like I said so many times before: when you can show me whatever megapixels is the Canon marketing blast of the day that actually look like that across the entire frame, not just where it is convenient, you will convince me that I am looking at a consistent image. Until then, it's just the usual Canon fabricated mush. > clearly Noons you had no idea of what a 15 MP DSLR can do, but now you > do. Well this is not 15Mp, in fact it's a jpg of a jpg with all that implies in losses, but it remains consistent: http://www.flickr.com/photos/11256029@N00/4318727886/in/set-72157623175252697/ Oh, before you start with the usual "it's soft and noisy" nonsense: the roof line in the distant left is corrugated iron. That's 2" corrugations at 100 yeards and they still show detail. When your 15Mp can show 2" of detail at that distance, we'll talk. I wouldn't hold my breath, given it cannot show 5" inch wide tiles at half that, but hey: knock your socks off imagining you are seeing 15Mp. On 1/31/2010 4:40 AM Noons spake thus: > Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 31/01/2010 12:52 PM: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Of course: we are supposed to imagine that tiles get fuzzy if facing left, is it? I looked at that picture; I don't think it really says anything one way or the other about resolution of details. The shot would probably look much the same on film. It is weird, though: why *do* the tiles on the left side look so different? They look *flat*, when we can see from the tiles on the front that they're curved. (Hey, maybe the homeowner had that side roofed with flat tiles for some reason.) So what is going on in this pic? My guess is that this strange appearance of the left-side tiles is just a consequence of viewing them side-on instead of head-on. I suppose the tiles *could* have been somehow digitally altered, but why on earth would anyone do that? SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > On 1/31/2010 4:40 AM Noons spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > I suppose the tiles *could* have been somehow digitally altered, but why > on earth would anyone do that? I think the tiles look different mainly due to the angle they are being viewed at, and perhaps also a bit of how the light is hitting them. Just for grins I did what Bret had asked, taking the same shot with both the 50mm and one frame and compare it to a stitch version using a longer lens. This time I shot both shots very close in time and from the same location, which makes comparing them much easier. This is the single shot using a 50mm lens. http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4326959615/sizes/o/in/set-721576231672 60141/ And this is from the stitch one, which used around 100mm for the FL. http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4326958667/sizes/o/in/set-721576231672 60141/ There is no question that the stitched image is sharper and cleaner, but if both these images were printed at 300 ppi I don’t think anyone would be able to see a difference in sharpness. An interesting test would be to do the same thing I have done here but with film, shoot the same scene with both 35mm film and MF then down size the MF scan to match the 35mm scan. I am willing to bet that the difference between the two would be much larger then the difference between my two images. Scott On 2/3/2010 3:21 AM Scott W spake thus: >> So what is going on in this pic? My guess is that this strange >> appearance of the left-side tiles is just a consequence of viewing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > being viewed at, and perhaps also a bit of how the light is hitting > them. Well, duh; that's just what I suggested. Thanks for paraphrasing. An interesting test would be to do the same thing I have done here but > with film, shoot the same scene with both 35mm film and MF then down > size the MF scan to match the 35mm scan. I am willing to bet that the > difference between the two would be much larger then the difference > between my two images. Well, duh again. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > On 2/3/2010 3:21 AM Scott W spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Well, duh again. Maybe duh, but I was in part writing for Noons, I really think he believes that a 4000 ppi scan of film is sharp and artifact free. Scott On 2/3/2010 12:00 PM Scott W spake thus: >> On 2/3/2010 3:21 AM Scott W spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Maybe duh, but I was in part writing for Noons, I really think he > believes that a 4000 ppi scan of film is sharp and artifact free. Non sequitur. You suggested scanning a 35mm exposure and a MF exposure and comparing them. All this does is prove how much better the MF scan will be. Let's say you choose 6x6 for your MF format: that's 4 times the area of the 35mm frame. Of course it's going to be much better. What does that prove? SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > On 2/3/2010 12:00 PM Scott W spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > say you choose 6x6 for your MF format: that's 4 times the area of the > 35mm frame. Of course it's going to be much better. And the stitched digital shot is probably about the same. > What does that prove? > > On 2/3/2010 12:00 PM Scott W spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > And the stitched digital shot is probably about the same. I would be interested to see, my bet is the difference is much more noticeable with film. You don't even need a MF camera to test this, just shoot the same scene with a 50mm and 100mm lens. Scan the image that used the 50mm lens at 4000 ppi and the 100mm one at 2000 ppi. Scott > On 2/3/2010 12:00 PM Scott W spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > say you choose 6x6 for your MF format: that's 4 times the area of the > 35mm frame. Of course it's going to be much better. What does that prove? If a MF image is down sampled to the size of a 35mm scan at 4000 ppi, and it if looks far better then that says to me that the 4000 ppi scan of 35mm is not producing very good pixels. cott Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 4/02/2010 7:00 AM: > Maybe duh, but I was in part writing for Noons, I really think he > believes that a 4000 ppi scan of film is sharp and artifact free. Across the *entire* image frame it will be free of the artifacts that are clearly visible in your "15MP" images. Not just where it is "interesting" to show "detail". David Nebenzahl wrote,on my timestamp of 4/02/2010 6:43 AM: >> I think the tiles look different mainly due to the angle they are >> being viewed at, and perhaps also a bit of how the light is hitting [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Well, duh again. Don't expect a direct answer to your simple questions, David. Explaining why is it that Canon's dslr images don't have the same resolution across the whole frame is something you'll never get out of Scott and the other Canon mobsters around here. They simply refuse to see and acknowledge the obvious, even when slapped on their faces: the problems caused to the Bayer filter when resolving repeating high frequency detail that doesn't match the regular vertical/horizontal patterns they were designed to handle. And a Canon firmware RAW generator that simply can't handle an "unknown" high-frequency pattern or contrast combination and just smudges the lot as if it was noise, because that is what it was programmed to do. Look at the later image with the large boat in the distance. Because that boat has a regular high-frequency pattern of vertical/horizontal detail in one of the pre-coded contrast combinations, it resolves adequately even though it is much higher frequency than the roof tiles. What Scott conveniently still avoids like the plague is the simple fact that Canon dslrs are unable to resolve uniform detail across the entire frame. Canon's RAW firmware uses heavy smudging to create the so-called "clean" images these "experts" love so much. Completely obliterating anything that is actual detail, if it so much as resembles what the algorithms pre-define as "noise". Doesn't matter where in the image it is. And their in-camera jpg engine is even worse. That is why the letters in the blue cap in this original 5Dm2 shot: http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos5dmkii_preview/originals/img_0660.jpg (funny how this image was removed from direct access at dpreview after I pointed out its short-comings! Aren't "coincidences" grand?) are smudged, while there is plenty of other areas in that image where much smaller detail - conformant to the Canon firmware algorithms - is clearly visible. Why? You and other consumers are perfectly entitled to ask such. Don't expect a sensible answer from the Canon mobsters, though: more than likely and as usual, more obfuscation. Rest assured though: in 20 years time, those images will *still* be perfectly preserved crap, and pointed out as such. Your and my film will still be scanning as good as today, across the entire frame and with no pre-coded artifacts. > I think the tiles look different mainly due to the angle they are > being viewed at, and perhaps also a bit of how the light is hitting [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > And this is from the stitch one, which used around 100mm for the FL.http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4326958667/sizes/o/in/set-7... Did the 100mm lens use a polarizer? I think the tile issue that Noons mentioned is more of a light polarization issue rather than a digital sensor issue. It certainly doesn't make sense to think that roof tiles viewed head on will look the same as those viewed on edge when the light hitting them is totally different. > > I think the tiles look different mainly due to the angle they are > > being viewed at, and perhaps also a bit of how the light is hitting [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > tiles viewed head on will look the same as those viewed on edge when > the light hitting them is totally different. No polarizer on either lens, here is a shot with a 300mm lens, it is pretty clear that the difference in look is not due to problems with the camera sensor. http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4327912469/sizes/l/ Clearly it is possible to run into cases where the bayer pattern causes artifacts, and clearly there is some loss of detail due to the bayer pattern but I don’t think it is nearly as bad as Noons would have us believe. Scott Scott, you should tell your neighbors that they now have the most viewed roof line in the U.S. > Scott, you should tell your neighbors that they now have the most > viewed roof line in the U.S. Nope, that would be Ken Rockwell's neighbors roof line. Scott Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 4/02/2010 8:03 AM: >> Scott, you should tell your neighbors that they now have the most >> viewed roof line in the U.S. > > Nope, that would be Ken Rockwell's neighbors roof line. LOL! *THAT* was funny! Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 4/02/2010 7:08 AM: > No polarizer on either lens, here is a shot with a 300mm lens, it is > pretty clear that the difference in look is not due to problems with > the camera sensor. > http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4327912469/sizes/l/ I never said there were problems with the camera sensor. Try reading, instead of the usual nonsense insinuations. > Clearly it is possible to run into cases where the bayer pattern > causes artifacts, and clearly there is some loss of detail due to the > bayer pattern but I don’t think it is nearly as bad as Noons would > have us believe. Again: I never said it was exclusively due to the Bayer filter - although that is a contributor. I said very clearly it is due to the crap algorithms being used by Canon's firmware to create its so-called "clean" images. These brute-force algorithms are called by the extreme post-processing Canon firmware imposes into its RAW images to try and hide any semblance of noise. When the algorithms identify a contrast pattern that is similar to what they recognize as noise they simply smudge the crap out of any detail. Regardless of its appropriateness or location. Precisely what we see in your images. You keep your randomly smudged "15MP" images, while I keep true 15MP images across the *ENTIRE* frame, thank you very much. OK? Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 31/01/2010 12:18 PM: >> Perhaps. One never knows. Funny though, you have "seen" sharper 35mm film >> shots than mine but you have never been able to produce evidence of such. >> Interesting theory... > > Scott has posted many images that are sharper than anything you've yet > produced. See if you can understand basic language, dipshit. Scott claims he's seen *film images* sharper than mine. And never produced such evidence. Understand now, idiot? I don't give a fig about his digital images. > Your response is to accuse him of using stitched images That was not my response, moron. > original RAW file you claim that you still haven't seen the proof > because you can't be bothered to look at it. Exactly. And guess what: I still couldn't be bothered looking at it. > So, Noons, when are you going to post something to impress us? I'm not even interested in "impressing" the likes of you, moron. > I've > got a pic that will knock you on your a.s. Wanna see it? Wanna lose another online storage site? It has happened before: where is your aol account now? > > A photo from the 50D > >http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4307411531/sizes/o/ > > No. It's a *composite* photo from the 50D which you have made out of stitched > images. I know what a 15Mp dslr can do, Scott: enough of your fakes. You are starting to sound like another wacky Australian who used to post here. That's one image, dude. Check the EXIF. The EXIF never lies! Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 28/01/2010 2:11 AM: > Check the EXIF. The EXIF never lies! ROFL! What can I say except: http://www.flickr.com/photos/11256029@N00/4311348154/sizes/o/ Yeah: the EXIF never lies. Sure... Any other jokes? That was a darn good one! >> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:38:50 -0800 (PST), Scott W >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >So how do we know his current thinking is not because he just dropped >a lot of money on a new film scanner? That's true. ;-) >I bought by first film scanner when I was my digital camera was 1.2 >MP, I paid twice as much for the scanner as I paid for my digital [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >This was scanned on it close to 10 years ago >http://www.flickr.com/photos/36939621@N06/4307348777/sizes/o/ That was also my first scanner, and my first contact with Ed Hamrick who was developing what became Vuescan. Ed transformed the performance of the Photosmart, much to HP's displeasure. ;-) On 1/25/2010 10:37 PM Jeremy Nixon spake thus: >> I've got four dSLRs, but I miss shooting film, so come Christmas, my mom >> wanted me to take pictures so I dusted off my old ElanII, 28-105 lens, and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > digital is so much better than film is easily escaped from by actually > trying it. Well put. I would just add that it's trivially easy to get from the analog to the digital domain when necessary (for web use, digital printing or publication) by means of a marvelous machine called a "scanner". SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > I would just add that it's trivially easy to get from the analog to the > digital domain when necessary (for web use, digital printing or > publication) by means of a marvelous machine called a "scanner". "Trivially easy?" You don't do much high-res scanning, I'm guessing. "Pain in the a.s" is more like it. Ever tried scanning a 36-exposure roll at 5400 dpi? >> I would just add that it's trivially easy to get from the analog to the >> digital domain when necessary (for web use, digital printing or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ever tried scanning a 36-exposure roll at 5400 dpi? Point! Trivially easy in concept, pia in practice. I loathe scanners. Signaturejohn mcwilliams On 1/26/2010 10:01 PM John McWilliams spake thus: >>> I would just add that it's trivially easy to get from the analog to the >>> digital domain when necessary (for web use, digital printing or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Point! Trivially easy in concept, pia in practice. I loathe scanners. What do you mean, pain in the a.s? Trivially easy, I say; just take the film to [fill in name of service provider here] and have them scan it. Lightweights! SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" > On 1/26/2010 10:01 PM John McWilliams spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Lightweights! Forgot about one of the early points? E X P E N S E......mucho dinero to have HQ scans done. SignatureJohn McWilliams On 1/26/2010 10:36 PM John McWilliams spake thus: >> What do you mean, pain in the a.s? Trivially easy, I say; just take the >> film to [fill in name of service provider here] and have them scan it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Forgot about one of the early points? E X P E N S E......mucho dinero > to have HQ scans done. Granted, but we were talking about ease, not expense. SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 27/01/2010 4:22 PM: >> I would just add that it's trivially easy to get from the analog to the >> digital domain when necessary (for web use, digital printing or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ever tried scanning a 36-exposure roll at 5400 dpi? With a Minolta? Perish the thought! >> I've got four dSLRs, but I miss shooting film, so come Christmas, my mom >> wanted me to take pictures so I dusted off my old ElanII, 28-105 lens, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > digital is so much better than film is easily escaped from by actually > trying it. A talented friend runs an all-digital portrait studio. My studio is all film with an in-house optical darkroom (no negative scanning). Recently we discussed costs involved in our procedures, and the amount of time spent. Not much difference. Plus, he even admitted that he would probably rather spend the time in the darkroom than sitting in front of a computer. Ken Hart Answering the title question, definitely! Don't be put off by the techno-fashion-latest gadget-auto everything-worshippers here who wouldn't know what composition was, even if it bit them in their a**es. > I've got four dSLRs, but I miss shooting film, so come Christmas, my mom > wanted me to take pictures so I dusted off my old ElanII, 28-105 lens, and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > them. I'm doing some math, and I think each shot, with flash, is going to > cost about 4 bucks. Sheesh -- better get it right the first time !! I shoot Tri-X and T-Max in my EOS Elan 7N and Mamiya C330f. Process the film and prints myself. It's very satisfying and the results are beautiful. SW --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- >> I've got four dSLRs, but I miss shooting film, so come Christmas, my mom >> wanted me to take pictures so I dusted off my old ElanII, 28-105 lens, and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I shoot Tri-X and T-Max in my EOS Elan 7N and Mamiya C330f. Process the > film and prints myself. It's very satisfying and the results are beautiful. Excellent. Signaturejohn mcwilliams Yeah, I still shoot 120 and 135 TRI-X film, I also have my own darkroom for 15 years, I also have a digital point and shot camera. Recognizing all digital advantages, I prefer far long getting images from chemicals at the darkroom than spending boring sessions in front of the monitor playing with several digital imaging tools. On the other hand, no DSRL has comparable feeling -to me- and easy adjustments when working with them than any of my old manual and mechanical Nikons and Hasselblads, so I can understand your way back to photochemical amazing world. Probably you will say we are a minority in the photographic world but it doesn't matter at all if we still can get stuff enough and we enjoy so much as we do everyday we take pictures and process them in our own. And yes, film is still alive....why? I think it's easy to explain, digital does not outperform BW & colour slides best films in terms of reality, texture, dynamic range etc. I can't get comparable BW images with my friend's 5D (and posprocessing) than I get in my darkroom from "old fashioned BW films" in a 10" x 15" print, maybe I am not expert but highlights usually become plain in digital. So I think that we have to remember not to be pushed by market when deciding what is really more convenient for us in terms of costs and quality. Alvaro Patrick L escribió: > I've got four dSLRs, but I miss shooting film, so come Christmas, my > mom wanted me to take pictures so I dusted off my old ElanII, 28-105 [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Patrick We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "Patrick L" <itsabout@time.com> saying something like: >I've got four dSLRs, but I miss shooting film, <ding!> It was dSLRs that re-awoke my film interest, as I hadn't done much at all for nearly a decade. Before I knew it, I was acquiring ancient SLRs and Medium Format cameras, but that wasn't enough - my latest kick is Large Format (well, what technically comes under that heading, but in terms of real LF, mere tiddlers) of 9x12cm and 4x5inches. The image quality on MF and LF is stunning, just stunning (with something half-decent on the front, of course). The thing I like about film use is I slow riiiiigghhttt down - with digital I tend to rattle them off but with MF and LF it's much more methodical and LF especially, I can take half an hour before a shot just setting things up. Mind you, the old 9x12s can be used as P&S - it's a hoot that way. On Feb 11, 9:01 am, Grimly Curmudgeon <grimly4REM...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote: > We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the > drugs began to take hold. I remember "Patrick L" <itsab...@time.com> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > setting things up. > Mind you, the old 9x12s can be used as P&S - it's a hoot that way. Oh, this hits close to home. When the fever hits, I will find myself in feverish sweat with my finger on the dBay "Place Bid" button for a Pentax 645 complete kit with 3 lenses and 2 backs, or even a Graflex Speed Graphic. But then I remind myself that the quality of my photos is not limited by my equipment. After repeating this over and over for a half hour, the fever eventually goes away. >It was dSLRs that re-awoke my film interest, as I hadn't done much at >all for nearly a decade. Before I knew it, I was acquiring ancient SLRs [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >setting things up. >Mind you, the old 9x12s can be used as P&S - it's a hoot that way. I use 4x5". I'm not familiar with the 9x12cm format. Sounds like fun! Where did that format originate? Can you still buy pre-cut film? What camera and film do you use? On 2/11/2010 9:33 AM Bruce spake thus: > I use 4x5". I'm not familiar with the 9x12cm format. Sounds like fun! > > Where did that format originate? Can you still buy pre-cut film? What > camera and film do you use? 9x12 was the European size counterpart, roughly speaking, to the North American 4x5 size. (You have to implicitly remember that 9x12 is in centimeters and is smaller than 4x5 inches. But you knew that.) Historically, the cm size films were descendants of the earlier plate sizes; early formats were full plate, half plate, quarter plate, etc. There is also 12x18 and a couple other standard sizes. (6x9 is exactly half of the 9x12 format.) I have a bunch of 9x12 cameras, all of which are in the standard "folding plate" style. These are compact cameras that fold out of rectangular boxes (mostly metal, though I have one wooden one). The front door becomes the bed along which the lens standard slides out. They're still very plentiful on eBay, and probably "in the wild" as well. They are capable of taking *fantastic* pictures. Film is getting a little hard to find, but it's still available. I know J&C Photo, which had several brands of 9x12 film, is out of business, but there are other suppliers. The film one can get these days seems to be limited to Euro stuff, Foma or some such. But it's good film (black and white only). These cameras are cheap enough that they are easy to experiment with. I highly recommend them. Keep in mind that these are *not* full-blown view cameras; they have limited movements (shift and rise, but usually no tilt). But you can get amazing results from them. (The ones I have are Zeiss [Maximar], Voigtlander [Avus and Vag], a couple Icas, a couple Patent Etuis, an Ica Favorit, and some assorted mongrels. I've also been lucky enough to score lots of film holders, which can be difficult to find. Actually, most of them are plate holders with film inserts.) SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" >On 2/11/2010 9:33 AM Bruce spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >American 4x5 size. (You have to implicitly remember that 9x12 is in >centimeters and is smaller than 4x5 inches. But you knew that.) In that respect the UK followed the USA standard rather than the European. 4x5 is very popular here. >Film is getting a little hard to find, but it's still available. I know >J&C Photo, which had several brands of 9x12 film, is out of business, >but there are other suppliers. The film one can get these days seems to >be limited to Euro stuff, Foma or some such. But it's good film (black >and white only). That's the advantage of 4x5. There is a surprisingly good range of film available. >These cameras are cheap enough that they are easy to experiment with. I >highly recommend them. Keep in mind that these are *not* full-blown view [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >which can be difficult to find. Actually, most of them are plate holders >with film inserts.) Thanks! On 2/11/2010 1:55 PM Bruce spake thus: >> On 2/11/2010 9:33 AM Bruce spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > In that respect the UK followed the USA standard rather than the > European. 4x5 is very popular here. Except that they call it "5x4" for some strange reason. Guess they just won't use the same terms those damn Yanks use ... SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" >On 2/11/2010 1:55 PM Bruce spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Except that they call it "5x4" for some strange reason. Guess they just >won't use the same terms those damn Yanks use ... We Brits always put the larger dimension first. That's why standard prints are 6 x 4 inches, and the most popular large(ish) print size is 10 x 8 inches. But the majority of English speakers do it the American way, as Brits are very much in the minority. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> saying something like: >I use 4x5". I'm not familiar with the 9x12cm format. Sounds like fun! > >Where did that format originate? Can you still buy pre-cut film? What >camera and film do you use? Germany, from the early 1900s onwards, up until the '40s, I believe. I have a couple of Weltas and an Ihagee focal plane shutter press camera - pretty much the German equivalent to the Speed Graphic. The film is still available from www.lumiere-shop.de http://www.lumiere-shop.de/index.php?page=product&info=3258 Various colour emulsions were also available until recently, but all that's left is old stock now. The only hassle is getting the film holders, as most of these were produced before much in the way of standardisation took place - but holders do come up on the 'bay regularly, just a question of taking a bit of a chance. It's best to buy a camera that comes with some holders. >We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the >drugs began to take hold. I remember Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >holders do come up on the 'bay regularly, just a question of taking a >bit of a chance. It's best to buy a camera that comes with some holders. Thanks. It's a useful size, with a 4/3 ratio. It just isn't one that I have come across. Now I know why. Thanks again. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> saying something like: >Now I know why. Thanks again. No problem. > We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the > drugs began to take hold. I remember Bruce<docnews2011@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > holders do come up on the 'bay regularly, just a question of taking a > bit of a chance. It's best to buy a camera that comes with some holders. I've walked away from Speed Graphics several times. Mint condition, great price. With several holders... Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. On 2/13/2010 7:56 AM Alan Browne spake thus: >> The only hassle is getting the film holders, as most of these were >> produced before much in the way of standardisation took place - but [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I've walked away from Speed Graphics several times. Mint condition, > great price. With several holders... Well, those are different from the 9x12 cameras we've been discussing. 4x5 holders are plentiful and easy to get (still being made); 9x12 holders for old folders not so. (I guess Linhof is still making 9x12 holders for their cameras, though.) SignatureYou were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. - a Usenet "apology" >We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the >drugs began to take hold. I remember "Patrick L" <itsabout@time.com> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >setting things up. >Mind you, the old 9x12s can be used as P&S - it's a hoot that way. I've done something very similar. I shoot a lot of digital, but I love using my Pentax 67 and Yashica D, both of which I got after I went digital. And just the last week or so, I've been looking around for an affordable 4 x 5 large format. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.