Prev: help: Panasonic Scanner: RTIV bundled software
Next: Canon scanner problem
From: Barry Watzman on 16 Jul 2007 23:09
I think that film photography with the intent to scan to digital is not
a very well thought out idea. I believe that the results will always be
inferior to photos originally taken with a high quality digital camera.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking either film photography or film
scanning, but in my view film scanning (and I have a Nikon film scanner)
is for conversion of shots that were originally shot and planned to be
used in a "film mode". I think that the ideal of shooting film and
PLANNING to then scan to digital is a mistake. If you KNOW that you
will want digital images, shoot digital. Conversion (in either
direction) is for unexpected situations, or archiving film media to
digital. It shouldn't be a process that is planned for every single
shot (or even the majority of shots), if that's the case, just shoot
digital to begin with.


LouisB wrote:
> I'm thinking about returning to film photography (an odd step because I
> currently use digital). The thing that would swing it for me is the ease and
> quality of home scanning. I am not a professional photographer but I am a
> serious amateur. I would like to be able to scan and print without the pain
> of finding a studio to do it for me.
>
> I am totally out of touch with current scanning technology. A search of
> google suggests there is really only one game in town: Nikon Coolscan.
>
> If this is the case then the decision is between the LS-50 and the 5000-ED
> (hope I've got that right). There seems to be a sizeable difference in price
> between the two (in the UK at least).
>
> Nikon seem to imply that if all you need are pictures for web pages then go
> for the LS-50 whereas if you require "professional" use then you need the
> 5000-ED. Is this marketing hype or would I find the LS-50 lacking if I want
> quality enlargements?
>
> Finally, am I out of my mind and should I just accept that the world has
> gone digital and buy a better digital camera?
>
> TIA if anyone cares to post a response
>
> LouisB
> ------
> "I'm a half-wit. I sold the other half on e-Bay"
>
>
From: Philip Homburg on 17 Jul 2007 04:14
In article <469c330d$0$4639$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com>,
Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM(a)neo.rr.com> wrote:
>I think that film photography with the intent to scan to digital is not
>a very well thought out idea. I believe that the results will always be
>inferior to photos originally taken with a high quality digital camera.

Only if you can find a digital camera that is both affordable and does
exactly what you want...

Anyhow, if you have enough light to be able to use ISO 100 film, then
the quality of film is high enough. There is no point in getting even
higher quality using digital.

If you need more resolution, get a bigger piece of film.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
From: Alan Browne on 17 Jul 2007 11:33
Barry Watzman wrote:
> I think that film photography with the intent to scan to digital is not
> a very well thought out idea. I believe that the results will always be
> inferior to photos originally taken with a high quality digital camera.
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking either film photography or film
> scanning, but in my view film scanning (and I have a Nikon film scanner)
> is for conversion of shots that were originally shot and planned to be
> used in a "film mode". I think that the ideal of shooting film and
> PLANNING to then scan to digital is a mistake.

If I could afford an H3/39 I'd agree. In the meantime I scan MF from my
500 C/M and print much larger than any 35mm digital.

The convenience of digital also means, that for smaller prints, a 6 or 8
mpix digital is more than enough.

Please don't top post.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
From: John on 17 Jul 2007 17:42
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 23:09:46 -0400, Barry Watzman
<WatzmanNOSPAM(a)neo.rr.com> wrote:

>I think that film photography with the intent to scan to digital is not
>a very well thought out idea. I believe that the results will always be
>inferior to photos originally taken with a high quality digital camera.

Not for landscape photography especially when taken with medium and
large format film. They both still blow digital out the water IMHO.

> Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking either film photography or film
>scanning, but in my view film scanning (and I have a Nikon film scanner)
>is for conversion of shots that were originally shot and planned to be
>used in a "film mode". I think that the ideal of shooting film and
>PLANNING to then scan to digital is a mistake. If you KNOW that you
>will want digital images, shoot digital. Conversion (in either
>direction) is for unexpected situations, or archiving film media to
>digital. It shouldn't be a process that is planned for every single
>shot (or even the majority of shots), if that's the case, just shoot
>digital to begin with.

Digital is not the best format for some types of photography.
Landscape photography is one. Astrophotography is another. Pretty much
any type of photography where you need full manual controls to take
long exposures without a drain on battery power would also be
included.

John


From: David J. Littleboy on 17 Jul 2007 20:57

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne(a)FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> Barry Watzman wrote:
>> I think that film photography with the intent to scan to digital is not a
>> very well thought out idea. I believe that the results will always be
>> inferior to photos originally taken with a high quality digital camera.
>> Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking either film photography or film
>> scanning, but in my view film scanning (and I have a Nikon film scanner)
>> is for conversion of shots that were originally shot and planned to be
>> used in a "film mode". I think that the ideal of shooting film and
>> PLANNING to then scan to digital is a mistake.

I think Barry was talking about 35mm film. Cheap shots from the MF universe
are, well, cheap<g>.

> If I could afford an H3/39 I'd agree. In the meantime I scan MF from my
> 500 C/M and print much larger than any 35mm digital.

Only if you print square. The 5D is very close to 6x6/645 if you are making
2:3 aspect ratio images. It take 6x7 to move ahead of the 5D for fine detail
capture. I'd love to do a 6x9 vs. 5D comparison, but picking up a GW690III
(and CLAing my Nikon 8000) aren't going to happen.

If I get energetic, I should do some more 6x7 comparisons, though. My
initial impression is that if there isn't high-contrast detail (such as
architectural detail or signs) then even 6x7 isn't a significant improvement
over the 5D, but I've seen people claiming that 6x7 does a better job on the
textures such as distant foliage. I seriously doubt that (since film loses
resolution at lower contrast), but testing is in order.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: help: Panasonic Scanner: RTIV bundled software
Next: Canon scanner problem