 |
 | 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 / Darkroom / January 2005scanner suggestions
Hi, Don't butcher me...hear me out. I still do regular darkroom stuff, but am interested in screwing around--a little--with PS. I shoot mainly mf stuff (6x6, thru 6x9), and some 4x5 stuff too. Have any of you regular darkroom types gone over? I don't intend to do it fully, just to dabble. Mainly to experiment. I didn't want to post this in a digital ng, because I value the input of REAL photographers over diginuts anyway. TIA, > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > TIA, Realistically a film scanner is almost a necessary evil, but not for traditional darkroom work. Your options are somewhat limited if you want the capability to scan the complete 6x6 though 4x5 range of sizes. I have a an Epson perfection which covers those ranges and its been a reasonably satisfactory scanner for what I use it for, Epson makes a 4870 model which a lot of people say is a better scanner. Priced at around 349 for the consumer version and 500.00 for the pro version with software. You could get a Mictrotek, but I wouldn't. :-( Or you could get an Imacon, again I wouldn't $$$$$$  SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >You could get a Mictrotek, but I wouldn't. :-( > > Hmmm..if I might be so bold....I'm not sure why you wouldn't buy a MicroTek? I only shoot B&W, and when I saw a MicroTek ScanmakerV on ebay recently really cheap I bought it. It was $0.99 and that was because one of the colour channels wasn't working on the transparency side only - fine on the reflective side. It does gray scale and BW just fine and it was $0.99 to buy and $50.00 to ship (heavy like tank!!) Transparency size is anything up to 8x10 and it came with everything including the original box, software, manuals and scsi card. Fast?-no, am I in a rush?-no. It works very well for me. cheers - just my $0.02 Signatureregards from :: John Bartley 43 Norway Spruce Street Stittsville, Ontario Canada, K2S1P5 ( If you slow down it takes longer - does that apply to life also?) >> You could get a Mictrotek, but I wouldn't. :-( >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > cheers - just my $0.02 Just for the halibut, here's a 4x5 negative scanned with my defective $0.99 MicroTek : http://www3.sympatico.ca/oldrad/Photo/LargeFormat/tree.jpg cheers Signatureregards from :: John Bartley 43 Norway Spruce Street Stittsville, Ontario Canada, K2S1P5 ( If you slow down it takes longer - does that apply to life also?) > Just for the halibut, here's a 4x5 negative scanned with my defective > $0.99 MicroTek : > > http://www3.sympatico.ca/oldrad/Photo/LargeFormat/tree.jpg > > cheers Yes that looks fine, why you showing us an image with scratches and dust,..don't you own an image editor program like photoshop? My issues were with customer service and company support of customers receiving new defective products. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >Yes that looks fine, why you showing us an image with scratches >and dust,..don't you own an image editor program like photoshop? > I'm afraid that my abilities are quite limited due to inexperience, but I am learning albeit slowly, and knowing nothing I am starting at the bottom :-) . >My issues were with customer service and company >support of customers receiving new defective products. Well, I do apologise for not understanding that. I 'm afraid that I missed that in this post :: >You could get a Mictrotek, but I wouldn't. :-( > cheers Signatureregards from :: John Bartley 43 Norway Spruce Street Stittsville, Ontario Canada, K2S1P5 ( If you slow down it takes longer - does that apply to life also?) > >Yes that looks fine, why you showing us an image with scratches > >and dust,..don't you own an image editor program like photoshop? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I am learning albeit slowly, and knowing nothing I am starting at the > bottom :-) . It does take time, regardless of your mode of execution. I guess I am lucky "or not" that I started in photo about the time the first murmurs about digital photo were taking place. So consequently I have been around scanners and the graphic side of it for about the same 19 out of 23 years. Sometimes I forget not all start out that way. > >My issues were with customer service and company > >support of customers receiving new defective products. > > > Well, I do apologise for not understanding that. I 'm afraid that I > missed that in this post :: Thats Ok I know your alright :-) SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Hmmm..if I might be so bold....I'm not sure why you wouldn't buy a > MicroTek? I only shoot B&W, and when I saw a MicroTek ScanmakerV on ebay [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > cheers - just my $0.02 John I worked 6 years in customer service at Omega Satter, I took back my share of defective products. If you ever have any reason to deal with Microtek directly you'll find out. Maybe the original seller had issues getting the color channel fixed. Hence the price,.... my 2 cents. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >John I worked 6 years in customer service at Omega Satter, I took back my >share of defective products. > >If you ever have any reason to deal with Microtek directly you'll find >out. Maybe the original seller had issues getting the color channel >fixed. Hence the price,.... my 2 cents. Hehehe - I fear that you're correct about the feasability of repairing it. I've not yet contacted MicroTek although the thought has crossed my mind, but if they're anything like the manufacturing companies that I had to deal with during a decade of running my own (successful) lawn and garden equipment company, it will be a heartache. I think maybe I'll just stick with gray scale :-) cheers eh? Signatureregards from :: John Bartley 43 Norway Spruce Street Stittsville, Ontario Canada, K2S1P5 ( If you slow down it takes longer - does that apply to life also?) > > Hi, > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Or you could get an Imacon, again I wouldn't $$$$$$ If higher end is desired one might be able to find an older used LeafScan 45 for less and would be more than adequate. It all depends on use/output. > -- > LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable > to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 The Leaf scanners are very good, I used a 35mm version for a solid two years with almost no gripes (other than speed). I suspect that pros know better than to let a 4x5 scanner go cheaply but with the swing to digital cameras, who knows... Signaturedarkroommike ---------- > > > > Hi, [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable > > to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 ... >Realistically a film scanner is almost a necessary evil, but not for >traditional darkroom work. ... jan1305 from Lloyd Erlick, I'd say that depends on your view of traditional darkroom work. I love my old HP 4c scanner (with transparency adapter). It's a flatbed and will scan any negs I have filed in polyethylene neg files. I use the three-hole kind that store in regular three-ring binders. I rarely bother to remove the negs from the sleeves, because I use the results for catalogue purposes, not finished work. It's very quick to scan a whole roll of negs at once, and just fine for my purposes. I do this for every roll I expose, and thus have every frame I've ever exposed nicely stored on disk in a convenient way. I find the screen a perfect way to review my work (I just love to see my chosen frames presented on-screen as a slide show!), far better for me than contact prints ever were. I'm a born procrastinator, and contact prints had a way of never getting done. The result was I spent a large chunk of my life never seeing my work, except partially and rather at random. I use PhotoShop version 3.5 (!) to invert the negs to positives, enlarge each frame on the screen for examination, and cutting out any I like and placing in a directory. These days I never go to the darkroom without knowing in advance which frames I'm going to work on. And I usually have a fair idea of how I want to handle each print. Also, a huge plus feature of this working method is that I can edit the work on the screen in small or large segments, according to my time, and I can have the images sitting in my head being silently edited very soon after I do the session. This is extremely important to me. A very large part of the creative effort is done without my conscious attention -- it's work that feels effortless! It also helps keep me sane and stable; people like me better that way! Digital is great for cataloguing, examining, trying out cropping, sending snaps to friends, showing off a portrait session's work to clients, and the like. But mois, I prefer ze 'and-made Argent Gelatine to ze Giclée. regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- <snip other pertinent stuff> > Digital is great for cataloguing, examining, trying out > cropping, sending snaps to friends, showing off a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > regards, > --le I agree,... I wish sometimes I had that kind of organization. Don't get me wrong, using a scanner is "very" important to much of my photo work, even inkjetting though I am using it solely to create printed promos and catalogs. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >> Hi, >> Don't butcher me...hear me out. I still do regular darkroom stuff, but am >> interested in screwing around--a little--with PS. I shoot mainly mf stuff >> (6x6, thru 6x9), and some 4x5 stuff too. >> Have any of you regular darkroom types gone over? I don't intend to do it >> fully, just to dabble. Mainly to experiment. If a neophyte may venture an opinion: sometimes a picture of mine looks useless on contact sheets, but ok after some digital nudging. The digital work gives me a sense that there might be merit to an image that would otherwise be disregarded. I'm sure a more experienced printer would not need the crutch of the scanner but I think it's helped me. > If a neophyte may venture an opinion: sometimes a picture of mine looks > useless on contact sheets, but ok after some digital nudging. The digital > work gives me a sense that there might be merit to an image that would > otherwise be disregarded. I'm sure a more experienced printer would not need > the crutch of the scanner but I think it's helped me. The only reason to do that is to save your butt, it makes bad practice to rely upon that. Best practice is making good exposures. If you have to have the image it beats not having it, if your being paid to do photo then all tools available are a benefit. In experience people get lazy when they think they can save themselves with Photoshop and a scanner. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > > If a neophyte may venture an opinion: sometimes a picture of mine looks > > useless on contact sheets, but ok after some digital nudging. The digital [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > then all tools available are a benefit. In experience people get lazy > when they think they can save themselves with Photoshop and a scanner. Think I'd have to echo this. It's rare that a contact sheet _actually_ tells me which negative would make the best print. Because printing is an art in itself more often than not it's simply printing the negatives made of a given scene which lead me to the best negative/print. This is a time consuming process (as real art usually is.) Contact sheets are merely a frame of reference for me, not an end in itself regarding which negatives to print. > -- > LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable > to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > > If a neophyte may venture an opinion: sometimes a picture of mine looks > > useless on contact sheets, but ok after some digital nudging. The digital [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The only reason to do that is to save your butt, it makes bad practice > to rely upon that. Why would scanning negatives and applying some basic "digital nudging", in order to evaluate their worthiness to be printed using dry-wet darkroom process be a bad practice? Guillermo : > If a neophyte may venture an opinion: sometimes a picture of mine looks : > useless on contact sheets, but ok after some digital nudging. The digital : > work gives me a sense that there might be merit to an image that would : > otherwise be disregarded. I'm sure a more experienced printer would not need : > the crutch of the scanner but I think it's helped me. : The only reason to do that is to save your butt, it makes bad practice : to rely upon that. Best practice is making good exposures. If you have : to have the image it beats not having it, if your being paid to do photo : then all tools available are a benefit. In experience people get lazy : when they think they can save themselves with Photoshop and a scanner. I am going to have to agree with you. :-) I've scanned poorly exposed negative and even after getting it scanned it took a lot of time and work in PS to get a useable image. Like you said it's much better to start with a properly exposed and developed negative. I do have to admit that I have more then a couple of negatives that after countless hours in the darkroom and more money spent on paper then I'd like to think about without ever getting a print that I liked. I've since taken those negatives and scanned them and within a couple of hours in photoshop ended up with a very good image. Now all I have to is figure out how to print it!! :-( SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > > If a neophyte may venture an opinion: sometimes a picture of mine looks > > useless on contact sheets, but ok after some digital nudging. The digital [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > then all tools available are a benefit. In experience people get lazy > when they think they can save themselves with Photoshop and a scanner. What nonsense, and non-responsive as well.. There's no reason not to explore the possibilities of a negative with scanner and computer, whether "neophyte" or not. That's much faster and cheaper than doing the same thing in the darkroom. The most likely problem which will appear is that you may not have the skills to traditonally produce the print you conceived on your computer. > > > If a neophyte may venture an opinion: sometimes a picture of mine looks > > > useless on contact sheets, but ok after some digital nudging. The [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > "neophyte" or not. > That's much faster and cheaper than doing the same thing in the darkroom. Which is also nonsense. Takes me about 10 minutes to make a contact sheet. From there I go right to making work prints from a given negative(s). Time well spent in the darkroom. > The most > likely problem which will appear is that you may not have the skills to > traditonally > produce the print you conceived on your computer. Especially if you can't tell a good negative from a bad one and have to scan and "nudge" it to make it look good. If that's the case might as well just spend the time making a print as fooling around for an hour or more in photoshop... > > What nonsense, and non-responsive as well.. There's no reason not to > > explore [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > spend the time making a print as fooling around for > an hour or more in photoshop... Don't you know Tom fast and cheap is all that matters to some people? People like you, I and a few others are looked on as archaic, knowledge means nothing whatsoever when someone can swindle a fast buck from someone else. Good luck in future to all those people leaving tried and true photography in favor of the latest fad, good luck making it profitable, good luck finding cheap quality products. I am just curious why I never saw Randy's post? Kill filed-could be? SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Don't you know Tom fast and cheap is all that matters to some people? You forgot drunk. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email >> Don't you know Tom fast and cheap is all that matters to some people? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org > Please remove the "_" when replying via email jan1505 from Lloyd Erlick, OK, there's a book in that: "Fast, cheap and drunk". I'd even be willing to use colour film if I had the contract to do the cover... is there a Luridia color neg?? regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- > > Don't you know Tom fast and cheap is all that matters to some people? > > You forgot drunk. And in the end all you have to show for it is a hangover. > Regards, > > John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org > Please remove the "_" when replying via email > > > Don't you know Tom fast and cheap is all that matters to some people? > > > > You forgot drunk. > > And in the end all you have to show for it is a hangover. Oh I don't know sometimes you might end up with a complete lack of self respect as well ;-) SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >> > What nonsense, and non-responsive as well.. There's no reason not to >> > explore [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> making work prints from a given negative(s). Time >> well spent in the darkroom. >> > The most >> > likely problem which will appear is that you may not have the skills to >> > traditonally >> > produce the print you conceived on your computer. >> Especially if you can't tell a good negative from >> a bad one and have to scan and "nudge" it to make >> it look good. If that's the case might as well just >> spend the time making a print as fooling around for >> an hour or more in photoshop... > Don't you know Tom fast and cheap is all that matters to some people? >People like you, I and a few others are looked on as archaic, knowledge >means nothing whatsoever when someone can swindle a fast buck from >someone else. Good luck in future to all those people leaving tried and >true photography in favor of the latest fad, good luck making it >profitable, good luck finding cheap quality products. >I am just curious why I never saw Randy's post? Kill filed-could be? Look, I'm not about to argue that "Levels" is any substitute for good darkroom work, or more importantly having a good eye. I'm an untrained amateur and a bit of messing around in photoshop made me realize that an image can look like trash on a contact sheet -- or a poor print -- but may be nonterrible or even good if you know how to print it right. You experienced darkroom hands know this. --travis > Look, I'm not about to argue that "Levels" is any substitute for good > darkroom work, or more importantly having a good eye. I'm an untrained > amateur and a bit of messing around in photoshop made me realize that an > image can look like trash on a contact sheet -- or a poor print -- but may > be nonterrible or even good if you know how to print it right. > You experienced darkroom hands know this. Rank beginners understand that, case in point someone I know was talking about their high school photo class and was saying how the image they got on a contact sheet did not even come close to what they saw, how after 23 years does one respond? Well photography is a compromise from reality, "always" yet sometimes more subtly than other times,.....the best and most successful photographers possibly are those that understand how to depart from that reality and still have a visually interesting image that at least comes close to their minds eye view. (That how I keep enjoying what I do, its also my goal"always") To closely match what I "see" or want to at the final level. What it all just boils down to is: It depends, It depends on what you intend to do with your imagery. It also depends on the definition of good. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >> Look, I'm not about to argue that "Levels" is any substitute for good >> darkroom work, or more importantly having a good eye. I'm an untrained >> amateur and a bit of messing around in photoshop made me realize that an >> image can look like trash on a contact sheet -- or a poor print -- but may >> be nonterrible or even good if you know how to print it right. >> You experienced darkroom hands know this. >Rank beginners understand that, case in point someone I know was talking >about their high school photo class and was saying how the image they >got on a contact sheet did not even come close to what they saw, how >after 23 years does one respond? Point is, you learn it somehow. If you're learning to print on your own, digital scans can help you learn. When you have to be your own teacher you need all the help you can get. >Well photography is a compromise from >reality, "always" yet sometimes more subtly than other times,.....the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >(That how I keep enjoying what I do, its also my goal"always") To >closely match what I "see" or want to at the final level. >What it all just boils down to is: It depends, It depends on what you >intend to do with your imagery. I take pictures because taking pictures makes you LOOK at things. Eventually I'll get a picture I like that I can display in my own home or office. Until then I still keep having fun with it. > >> Look, I'm not about to argue that "Levels" is any substitute for good > >> darkroom work, or more importantly having a good eye. I'm an untrained [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > digital scans can help you learn. When you have to be your own teacher you > need all the help you can get. Advice from someone who's taught photography: You'll learn best by printing, not scanning. Few negatives reveal their potential IMO while in contact form (assuming you have a good negative.) That's not point of a contact sheet. The point is to know what you shot. I regard a contact sheet merely as a reference, a catalog of the exposures. If you make good negatives and are skilled at printing you should be able to take any image from an otherwise dull contact sheet and make a decent print. A contact sheet provides only basic info (i.e., too dense or thin, paper grade starting point, etc.) The only way to know the true potential of a negative is to print it, and the only way to learn printing is to print. Frankly no amount of digital scanning/nudging is going to be nearly as useful as that. > >Well photography is a compromise from > >reality, "always" yet sometimes more subtly than other times,.....the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I'll get a picture I like that I can display in my own home or office. Until > then I still keep having fun with it. Contrary to the "shoot as much as possible" rule/advice, my suggestion would be to work on making fewer, more carefully thought out negatives. Explore one subject or motif and work it. Then print that negative until you get the best print you can make. This can be a slow process: print, reevaluate, print it again. I often will mount a work print (meaning a good print but one I consider a work in progress) to fully evaluate it under display lighting conditions. Learning to print requires practice to develop skill, artistry, and experience, not making contact sheets or scans. > Few negatives reveal their potential IMO while in > contact form (assuming you have a good negative.) [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > requires practice to develop skill, artistry, and > experience, not making contact sheets or scans. I think those are very good and valid points, If one shoots willy nilly one gets rather disoriented in just what one did to achieve the great results that were accomplished. Scanning can be used something like what Lloyd said or for contacting so one can see whether the subject closed his /her eyes.... the main reason in my use for contacts,. If one accomplishes great results :-) SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > > Few negatives reveal their potential IMO while in > > contact form (assuming you have a good negative.) [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > If one accomplishes great results :-) I'd agree. It's mainly a quick first look. That's all. Photoshop as a tool for creative image control and actual printing tools for creative control are really apples and oranges. If one's intention is to learn to print, best advice would be to print. If you're just exploring negatives through brightness and contrast adjustments in PS, that's basically just a digital contact sheet. But other digital adjustments are not likely to translate well to actual printing. IMO you'll learn far more by printing even a bad negative that results in a print you hate than umpteen hours spent looking at scans in PS. > -- > LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable > to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >> > Few negatives reveal their potential IMO while in >> > contact form (assuming you have a good negative.) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> > to print. Frankly no amount of digital scanning/nudging >> > is going to be nearly as useful as that. >> > Contrary to the "shoot as much as possible" rule/advice, >> > my suggestion would be to work on making fewer, more >> > carefully thought out negatives. There is much to be said for this advice. There have been times when I've filled a whole roll with 36 pointless shots in the hope something would be nonterrible. >> > Explore one subject or >> > motif and work it. Then print that negative until you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > requires practice to develop skill, artistry, and >> > experience, not making contact sheets or scans. >> I think those are very good and valid points, If one shoots >> willy nilly one gets rather disoriented in just what one did >> to achieve the great results that were accomplished. Scanning >> can be used something like what Lloyd said or for contacting >> so one can see whether the subject closed his /her eyes.... >> the main reason in my use for contacts,. >> If one accomplishes great results :-) > >I'd agree. It's mainly a quick first look. That's all. >Photoshop as a tool for creative image control and >actual printing tools for creative control are really [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >that results in a print you hate than umpteen hours >spent looking at scans in PS. No question about this. There are not many books, possibly not any, that teach "Darkroom skills for photoshop users"--for those of us who started out digital and are going silver (for obvious reasons). snip... > >Photoshop as a tool for creative image control and > >actual printing tools for creative control are really [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > that teach "Darkroom skills for photoshop users"--for those of us who > started out digital and are going silver (for obvious reasons). But there are a great many excellent books on printing! jan1505 from Lloyd Erlick, ... Best practice is making good exposures. ... No doubt about it! I've been practicing for that all my life. Soon I hope to achieve something close to it ... ... In experience people get lazy >when they think they can save themselves with Photoshop and a scanner. ... I've noticed that in certain people I've worked with. As soon as the camera is digital, or the intention is to scan the negatives and work from there, all concern relating to lighting, exposure, even composition are thrown out. "We can fix it in PhotoShop" seems to be something of a mantra. Someone I've worked with a lot in this context recently remarked, "As soon as I see 'TMY' on the edge of the frame, I know it's going to be easy work." Hah! Even double Hah! Little does he know it only means TMY came out late in my career, at a time when I had learned the importance of correct exposure! (And development...). (And what to do about lighting...). It's probably even true, if one has the patience. After all, there is only a finite number of pixels in a final digital work, print or otherwise. If one simply (hah!) adjusts each pixel correctly according to the job at hand, would the result not be just right? I used to know a pencil and paper artist who came pretty close to that. He ground his pencil on a piece of sandpaper (just the right kind of sandpaper ... and pencil ...) and picked up a few grains of graphite on a Q-tip (each one closely examined, some discarded unused) ... and applied it to his (just the right ...) paper ... many, many, many times. The results were fabulous, and he got paid a lot after a while. Adjusting pixels shouldn't be any different. Should it? I would regard it as the tenth level of hell, but who am I to talk... regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ > I've noticed that in certain people I've worked with. > As soon as the camera is digital, or the intention is [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > any different. Should it? I would regard it as the > tenth level of hell, but who am I to talk... I've never viewed retouching certain faces at 200% a particularly enjoyable task :-) SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >I've never viewed retouching certain faces at 200% >a particularly enjoyable task :-) Yeah, I wish some women would shave before a shoot ! Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email > Yeah, I wish some women would shave before a shoot ! He he,....I doubt your wife would find that amusing ;-( SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >I would regard it as the >tenth level of hell, but who am I to talk... I would agree completely. Frankly I'll take a properly exposed and developed image and make a good straight print a lot faster than anyone (short of a pro color lab) with a PC can make a digiprint that is "almost as good" and a lot less stable. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email ...I'm sure a more experienced printer would not need >the crutch of the scanner but I think it's helped me. ... jan1505 from Lloyd Erlick, I don't think it's a crutch. Any tool has validity as long as it does the job intended (or any job, for that matter...). It's legitimate to improve an image digitally if you want to do that. Many people like it, many like the wet darkroom (such as me). I've found that playing around with an image digitally gives me a sense of what I can do with it in the darkroom. If someone does the same and outputs to an inkjet, all I can say is great, it's just that I personally don't want to spend time discussing the fine points. I will discuss ridiculously fine points relating to chemical darkroom work, though, so I don't think we're really all that different! Inkjet clogs bore me, reversed condensers merit thought. Sensible, isn't it??? regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- > ...I'm sure a more experienced printer would not need > >the crutch of the scanner but I think it's helped me. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > want to do that. Many people like it, many like the wet > darkroom (such as me). I don't think the poster said he was trying to improve his negatives (implying non-photographic manipiulations); rather merely seeing what the possibilites were in lieu of a contact sheet. FWIW, if you can't produce a good printable negative (regardless of how you appraise it's printability), you need to learn how. If you can only get a good negative by "improving" it in PS you might as well just shoot digital where you can typically improve something until it no longer even represents what you orignally shot. > I've found that playing around with an image digitally > gives me a sense of what I can do with it in the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > ________________________________ > -- >...I'm sure a more experienced printer would not need >>the crutch of the scanner but I think it's helped me. >... >jan1505 from Lloyd Erlick, >I don't think it's a crutch. Any tool has validity as >long as it does the job intended (or any job, for that >matter...). >It's legitimate to improve an image digitally if you >want to do that. Many people like it, many like the wet >darkroom (such as me). >I've found that playing around with an image digitally >gives me a sense of what I can do with it in the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >bore me, reversed condensers merit thought. Sensible, >isn't it??? Actually, I've never printed a digital image yet. I use the scanner to share pictures over the web and I used it before I got an enlarger (such as it is). I didn't want to create a 'digital vs film' thread at all; I'm more interested in learning how as one other poster put it to go from digital to darkroom...how to translate 'Levels' into ilford multigrade filters & timers, etc. ... I'm more >interested in learning how as one other poster put it to go from digital to >darkroom...how to translate 'Levels' into ilford multigrade filters & timers, etc. ... jan1905 from Lloyd Erlick, I'd say it's just experience, like everything else. Play with the image digitally, work with it in the darkroom, and over time your mind will calibrate itself appropriately. I think it would be one of those imperceptible changes situations; one day you'd suddenly realize you'd been doing it. regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > TIA, The main advantage of scanning film is the degree of control you can get in the final print. Things like selectively adjusting a single color or very fine control over the contrast and brightness. If you mostly shoot B&W you will need to investigate one of the higher quality monochrome ink systems for prints. Most user's aren't too happy with B&W prints using color inks. For color images the pigment-based Epson inkjets are the current champs. I have quite a few tips on my web site about optimizing your images using a film -> digital workflow. Follow the tips link on my home page. SignatureRobert D Feinman Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs http://robertdfeinman.com mail: robertdfeinman@netscape.net > The main advantage of scanning film is the degree of control you can get > in the final print. Things like selectively adjusting a single color or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a film -> digital workflow. > Follow the tips link on my home page. Ah you slut ;-) He was asking about scanners not inkjet prints. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 [---] >If you mostly shoot B&W you will need to investigate one of the higher >quality monochrome ink systems for prints. Any recommendations? > >If you mostly shoot B&W you will need to investigate one of the higher > >quality monochrome ink systems for prints. > > Any recommendations? Hey,don't get him started,....what part of inkjet resembles darkroom. NOT. Maybe it would be better in an email exchange :-) SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 Joe Mama, Hmmm not since my Air Force tour of duty have I heard of anyone willing to be "Joe Mama", anyhow in that spirit, here is a link to a solution I came up with that produced a lot of flames, but what to the flammers know ;-) http://www.tom-elliott-photography.com/hp-scanner.html Since that hardware hack I now have a Microtek 5900 with a 4x5 builtin transparency adaptor, which for what I do is ok. And then there was the find of the century: An Epson 2450 with a 4x9 bultin transparency adaptor, which is also very good. I favor this scanner for the transition from color neg to a positive output on my Epson 1290 is very good. I use both for they each have strong points with their software. It all depends on the final use of the photos. The reason I say this is you have to know the final resolution (300 dpi or higher) and size (4x5inches 16x20inches). For a monthly B&W newsletter I use any input from my Nikon 995, Nikon D70, the two scanners, Kodak Standard and Pro photo CDs. I do not shoot any transparencies unless the client demands it. I find that color neg gives me a better range and Photoshop can punch it up. So, for the lowend, not to mean inferior only budget/time constrants, I use the cameras and the scanners. For the highend then color neg and Kodak Pro Photo CD. One job this route was a corporate portrait made from three negs scanned with Kodak Pro Photo CD and printed at a service bureau to 16x20 with digital file down on regular photo paper. It had everything I could wish for: Computer controll and wet process quality/archivalness. In this new age of computers nothing really inportant has changed....only the tools...you still have to have excellent technique and know and calabrate all your tools so they in combination give you what you and the client wants. Calibration is very important with computers, monitors, printers, software all have to work as a team. Remember your grey card test, shutter tests, lens test, meter tests. And then the single most important area: HAVE FUN!!! You live longer. All the best in your search. Yours, Tom Elliott > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > TIA, : Hi, : Don't butcher me...hear me out. I still do regular darkroom stuff, but am : interested in screwing around--a little--with PS. I shoot mainly mf stuff : (6x6, thru 6x9), and some 4x5 stuff too. : Have any of you regular darkroom types gone over? I don't intend to do it : fully, just to dabble. Mainly to experiment. : I didn't want to post this in a digital ng, because I value the input of : REAL photographers over diginuts anyway. I've been looking into doing exactly what you're describing. While I've gotten good results with color (both c41 and e6) but am having little luck with B&W images. I'm generating greyscale images with photoshop and printing on an Epson 2200. When I try I have a choice of getting prints with a magenta cast or green cast. I can't get B&W. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com anyone4tennis@hotmail.com wrote: > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I didn't want to post this in a digital ng, because I value the input of > REAL photographers over diginuts anyway. Darkrooms have always caused a hassle. Wife won't allow you to take over the big walk-in closet and washing and drying prints in the bathroom always caused headaches. One big advantage of digital is the 4:3 format. I've long complained about the 3:2 35mm format - it fits no paper size. Making a 35mm camera with a 4:3 ratio would yeild 40 or 41 pictures on a 36 roll. And printing full-frame would be far easier. Film has the edge over digital in clarity - 100 ASA film produces images almost identical to a 20 or 30 megapixel camera, but they aren't here yet - top of the line DSLRs are around 8-10 megapixels so film is here to stay for another few years at least. Using film (especially if you spend your own cash buying it) is it's expensive to shoot so you take more care over what you shoot. The big advantage of digital images is you can treat colour like B&W - you can dodge/burn, adjust the contrast, boost the highlights with a click of the mouse, paint out that irritating fire extingusher, trash can, telegraph pole or old dear who wandered into the frame and crop, reduce colour to B&W, add textures, merge two images and even replace that boring sky! |
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
|
©2009 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.