If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Noons
wrote: Film scanning is dead. film is dead. Really wrong. really right. Are you accusing me of necromancy? you weren't a part of this thread until now. film use may not be zero, but it's close to it and getting closer every day. Quite true. It's called a niche market. Nothing wrong with it and no need to get tragic with the "dead" thing. it's a common expression which does not mean completely zero. film sales have dramatically dropped off (kodak filed for bankruptcy, polaroid is just a name), many films are no longer made (kodachrome being the prime example), film cameras are no longer made (with very rare exception and very, very few are sold) and very few places to process film remain. True. Is that the definition of "dead" where you come from? Because here it's called a niche market. And quite active too! you agree film is on its way out yet you say it's active? strange. digital blows away film in every respect, although it can be downgraded to look exactly like film for those who want that effect. Akshally, completely wrong... The only aspect where digital blows away film is in sensitivity- or ISO, if you prefer that terminology. nope. digital blows away film in *every* metric. Everything else? Nup. PArticularly in B&W, Yes, folks still use that. In both digital and film! wrong. Of course, I'd advise you to learn a little bit about scanning and film before opening your trap again... take your own advice. you are completely wrong. you're just another delusional film fanboi who refuses to accept that the outdated technology has been surpassed. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 2017-04-18 14:02:01 +0000, nospam said:
In article , Noons wrote: Film scanning is dead. film is dead. Really wrong. really right. Are you accusing me of necromancy? you weren't a part of this thread until now. film use may not be zero, but it's close to it and getting closer every day. Quite true. It's called a niche market. Nothing wrong with it and no need to get tragic with the "dead" thing. it's a common expression which does not mean completely zero. Tell that to Attila The Hun, or General Franco. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 04/15/2017 08:02 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Russell D. wrote: buy a used nikon coolscan, scan all of your film, then sell it when you're done, as you won't be needing it anymore. Exactly what I was thinking when I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored with digital and started shooting film again. bored with digital? there's so much more it can do versus film. Why do I need it to do more? how can anyone be bored with it? Pretty easily. And many do. Glad I didn't sell it. ok. OK. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Russell D.
wrote: buy a used nikon coolscan, scan all of your film, then sell it when you're done, as you won't be needing it anymore. Exactly what I was thinking when I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored with digital and started shooting film again. bored with digital? there's so much more it can do versus film. Why do I need it to do more? why limit yourself? if you're satisfied with mediocre, go for it. how can anyone be bored with it? Pretty easily. And many do. not that many and fewer every day. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 04/18/2017 05:42 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Russell D. wrote: buy a used nikon coolscan, scan all of your film, then sell it when you're done, as you won't be needing it anymore. Exactly what I was thinking when I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored with digital and started shooting film again. bored with digital? there's so much more it can do versus film. Why do I need it to do more? why limit yourself? I'm not. if you're satisfied with mediocre, go for it. Mediocre is relative. how can anyone be bored with it? Pretty easily. And many do. not that many and fewer every day. False. Film sales are increasing. Try it you'll like it. Oh, wait your not a photographer, just a talker. Russell |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:22:15 -0600, "Russell D."
wrote: On 04/18/2017 05:42 PM, nospam wrote: In article , Russell D. wrote: buy a used nikon coolscan, scan all of your film, then sell it when you're done, as you won't be needing it anymore. Exactly what I was thinking when I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored with digital and started shooting film again. bored with digital? there's so much more it can do versus film. Why do I need it to do more? why limit yourself? I'm not. if you're satisfied with mediocre, go for it. Mediocre is relative. how can anyone be bored with it? Pretty easily. And many do. not that many and fewer every day. False. Film sales are increasing. Try it you'll like it. Oh, wait your not a photographer, just a talker. Russell It's not like nospam needs my help, but your criticism is unfair. There are two sides to photography - technical and artistic. Nospam has never joined in any threads regarding any photos that anyone has posted. He has never criticized any photo from an artistic viewpoint - it's just not what he does here. He clearly has vast technical knowledge on many photography related subjects, and the technical side is all he *ever* posts on. And that says absolutely nothing about his photographic skills. He could be a star, and he might suck. Who knows, and who cares? Any criticism of his technical comments are certainly understandable, right or wrong, but commenting on his skills as a photographer makes no sense at all. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:48:12 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote: On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:01:41 -0700, Bill W wrote: On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:22:15 -0600, "Russell D." wrote: On 04/18/2017 05:42 PM, nospam wrote: In article , Russell D. wrote: buy a used nikon coolscan, scan all of your film, then sell it when you're done, as you won't be needing it anymore. Exactly what I was thinking when I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored with digital and started shooting film again. bored with digital? there's so much more it can do versus film. Why do I need it to do more? why limit yourself? I'm not. if you're satisfied with mediocre, go for it. Mediocre is relative. how can anyone be bored with it? Pretty easily. And many do. not that many and fewer every day. False. Film sales are increasing. Try it you'll like it. Oh, wait your not a photographer, just a talker. Russell It's not like nospam needs my help, but your criticism is unfair. There are two sides to photography - technical and artistic. Nospam has never joined in any threads regarding any photos that anyone has posted. He has never criticized any photo from an artistic viewpoint - it's just not what he does here. He clearly has vast technical knowledge on many photography related subjects, and the technical side is all he *ever* posts on. And that says absolutely nothing about his photographic skills. He could be a star, and he might suck. Who knows, and who cares? Any criticism of his technical comments are certainly understandable, right or wrong, but commenting on his skills as a photographer makes no sense at all. While your point is somewhat valid, but nospam commenting on artistic choice makes no sense. And, shooting film is an artistic choice. For him to say that capturing on film is "mediocre" is like telling an artist who paints with water colors that the choice of water colors will yield a mediocre result compared to using oil. Or that an charcoal sketch is a mediocre painting compared to trompe l'oeil. I disagree. The way I see it, his comments on film vs digital are strictly technical. To me he is saying that there is *nothing* you can do with film that you cannot do with digital, so there is no artistic choice to be make in the first place. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , -hh
wrote: Set up the slide projector at home, with a dSLR on a tripod next to it ... project, click, project, click ... this is a quick & dirty way to get a halfway decent quality image quickly, which is better than nothing. Problem with this is of course that you are limited to the resolving power of the slide projector lens, which usually is really crappy. Also, the smoothness of the projector surface, which unless it's a movie-grade projection screen usually is really poor. -- Sandman |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:45:09 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote: On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:06:55 -0700, Bill W wrote: On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:48:12 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote: On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:01:41 -0700, Bill W wrote: On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:22:15 -0600, "Russell D." wrote: On 04/18/2017 05:42 PM, nospam wrote: In article , Russell D. wrote: buy a used nikon coolscan, scan all of your film, then sell it when you're done, as you won't be needing it anymore. Exactly what I was thinking when I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored with digital and started shooting film again. bored with digital? there's so much more it can do versus film. Why do I need it to do more? why limit yourself? I'm not. if you're satisfied with mediocre, go for it. Mediocre is relative. how can anyone be bored with it? Pretty easily. And many do. not that many and fewer every day. False. Film sales are increasing. Try it you'll like it. Oh, wait your not a photographer, just a talker. Russell It's not like nospam needs my help, but your criticism is unfair. There are two sides to photography - technical and artistic. Nospam has never joined in any threads regarding any photos that anyone has posted. He has never criticized any photo from an artistic viewpoint - it's just not what he does here. He clearly has vast technical knowledge on many photography related subjects, and the technical side is all he *ever* posts on. And that says absolutely nothing about his photographic skills. He could be a star, and he might suck. Who knows, and who cares? Any criticism of his technical comments are certainly understandable, right or wrong, but commenting on his skills as a photographer makes no sense at all. While your point is somewhat valid, but nospam commenting on artistic choice makes no sense. And, shooting film is an artistic choice. For him to say that capturing on film is "mediocre" is like telling an artist who paints with water colors that the choice of water colors will yield a mediocre result compared to using oil. Or that an charcoal sketch is a mediocre painting compared to trompe l'oeil. I disagree. The way I see it, his comments on film vs digital are strictly technical. To me he is saying that there is *nothing* you can do with film that you cannot do with digital, so there is no artistic choice to be make in the first place. No, the difference is not technical. From an artistic point of view, how you get there is part of the artistic effort. The film experience goes from taking the photograph, to processing the negative, to making prints. That whole experience is what the film photographer enjoys. In digital, you take the photograph, process the files, and make the print. Similar steps, but not the steps that the film enthusiasts enjoys. I enjoy the digital steps, but I recognize that not everyone feels the same way. If you don't understand - as nospam doesn't - the enjoyment of going through the film steps, and think only of the result, you'll never understand why the film photographer does what he does. Any non-professional who feels that the only thing that matters in photography is the result is - in my opinion - really missing something in this wonderful hobby. What I feel is that whatever your artistic vision for any given subject, it is more easily rendered in the digital domain. It might be because I am strictly a technical sort, and have about zero artistic aptitude. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On 19/04/2017 12:02 @wiz, nospam wrote:
you agree film is on its way out yet you say it's active? strange. You see, size of sales means nothing to me in the context of niche markets. "on the way out" is a complete fallacy. And I agreed nothing. Fact is: even Kodak is re-introducing some film types. Of course it's not going to be "all there is". That is the definition of niche. The only aspect where digital blows away film is in sensitivity- or ISO, if you prefer that terminology. nope. digital blows away film in *every* metric. Disagree completely and I have the facts and results to prove it. Note that I never said I don't use digital. Everything else? Nup. PArticularly in B&W, Yes, folks still use that. In both digital and film! wrong. Really? You mean that b&w film I and others have been using is actually not a film? take your own advice. you are completely wrong. Learn about using and scanning film and then come back with comments on how to use or how many are using it. you're just another delusional film fanboi who refuses to accept that the outdated technology has been surpassed. And you are one of the "modern and digital must be good" bull**** artists who think making unfounded and unprovable statements in the Usenet is proof enough of your "profound knowledge of everything". Totally wrong, just like your other statements here. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
film scanners | James[_3_] | In The Darkroom | 0 | October 8th 09 08:37 AM |
Film Scanners | Stephen[_2_] | Digital Photography | 1 | July 10th 09 07:56 PM |
Film scanners anyone? | Ted Gibson | Digital Photography | 15 | January 8th 08 03:31 AM |
Film Scanners | Gel | Digital Photography | 20 | February 21st 05 12:25 AM |
M/F film scanners - again? | Rod | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 17 | May 31st 04 04:14 PM |