A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Film scanners?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old April 21st 17, 10:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,438
Default Film scanners?

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 23:11:18 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


In this neck of the woods there are more than 15 major art
shows per year that have many photographers in both mediums
presenting
their work, and there are easily perceived differences in their
prints.

completely meaningless and an intentionally deceptive comparison.

Isn't that a bit presumptive?

nope.

Or have you been to the shows in Mr Neil's
"neck of the woods"?

he is attempting to compare two different photos taken by two different
photographers of two different subjects under different lighting with
different exposures on two different mediums, and then claiming that
the only reason the results are different is because one is film and
the other is digital. that's completely absurd.

there are *far* too many variables to make the comparison even the
slightest bit useful.

it's also not needed since whatever 'film look' someone might want can
be done with digital. simple fact.

You are changing the subject. Typical.

nothing was changed. not a single thing.

Bull****.

bull**** right back.

The original discussion was about film photography vs digital
photography in general. Now here you are writing as though the
discussion was about "two different photos taken by two different
photographers ... etc". Up till now no one was discussing "two
different photos taken by two different photographers ... etc" until
you introduced the topic.

nope. read it again. someone *else* brought the comparison.


Nope.

Prove me wrong by giving a quote.


scroll up.


Typical cop out.

Give me a quote.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #122  
Old April 21st 17, 10:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,438
Default Film scanners?

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 23:27:14 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

apparently you don't know how to use digital to its maximum
performance.

Probably nobody does.

plenty of people do.

Do you mean there is nothing new to be still discovered or
invented?

no. how the hell did you get that crazy idea from what i wrote?????

Come now ...

indeed.

You wrote that you think that "plenty of people do" when it comes to
using "digital to its maximum performance".

correct.

That means that the limit of digital performance is known. Therefore
there is nothing new to be discovered or invented.

no it doesn't mean that at all. not even remotely close.

Conversely, if there are new things to be discovered or invented then
the limits are not known and it is not possible to claim that anyone
is using "digital to its maximum performance".

it's not only possible, but that's exactly what i claimed.

So you are claiming that there are people doing things which have not
yet been discovered?

nope.

So things which have not been discovered are not yet being done?

what does that have to do with anything???


Ah ha! By your equivocation I can tell that you now see the trap
before you.


what i see is yet another one of your ridiculous arguments.

I will answer for you: "Of course things which have not been
discovered are not being done".

To which I answer "Then if there are things which have not been
discovered and are not being done then there is more to digital
photography than anyone knows how to do so nobody can possibly be
using 'digital to its maximum performance'".


entirely missing the point.


I think this will do for the end of the argument.

Typical.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #123  
Old April 21st 17, 02:10 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Barnabé
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Film scanners?

Savageduck wrote:

Not one cent of what I have spent on photography, film & digital, over
50+ years as a hobbyist photographer can be explained away rationally.

Since when do we need a "reason" to pursue a hobby from which we
derive pleasure? Since when is someone else's way of pursuing a hobby
not legitimate?


I have known folks who did some of the most obscure and pointless (and
sometimes expensive) things as hobbies.


See the Vivian Maier photography work, a hole life dedicated to
photography by a nanny and not a cent made out of it, a work that was
never shown to anyone before she died...

B.
  #125  
Old April 21st 17, 03:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,702
Default Film scanners?

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Since when do we need a "reason" to pursue a hobby from which we
derive pleasure? Since when is someone else's way of pursuing a hobby
not legitimate?


Not one person is arguing that film is not a legitimate pursuit. It's
the claims of the superiority of film output that we are arguing
about.

Who made that claim? I've followed this thread, and nospam has denied
that claim, but he's denying something that hasn't been claimed.


it was claimed.

This is what nospam does to a thread to create an argument where there
should not be an argument. The thread started on the subject of
scanners. Then, Russell D. posted: "Exactly what I was thinking when
I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored with digital and started
shooting film again. Glad I didn't sell it."

No claim that film is superior. No claim that he can do something
with film that can't be done with digital. Just a simple statement
that he started shooting film again.


in another post, he claimed film can do things digital cannot. that is
a completely bogus claim.

once again, you are twisting things.

nospam had to jump in and say: "bored with digital? there's so much
more it can do versus film." and Russell replied "Why do I need it to
do more?".

nospam, delighted to be able to start yet another argument while
putting-down someone else's preference and insult their ability wrote:
"why limit yourself? if you're satisfied with mediocre, go for it."

In other words, nospam feels that anyone shooting film is only capable
of mediocre output.


*film* is only capable of mediocre output.

it has nothing to do with the person using it.

anyone choosing film, for whatever reason, has limited themselves.
simple fact.

It's typical of nospam to do this. He creates dissension where there
is no dissension.


it's actually *you* who does that, going so far to fabricate things so
you can argue.

It's not a film shooter that has claimed superiority. It's the person
who says that film shooters can only produce mediocre results that is
claiming superiority.


wrong.
  #126  
Old April 21st 17, 03:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,702
Default Film scanners?

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


In this neck of the woods there are more than 15 major art
shows per year that have many photographers in both mediums
presenting
their work, and there are easily perceived differences in their
prints.

completely meaningless and an intentionally deceptive

comparison.

Isn't that a bit presumptive?

nope.

Or have you been to the shows in Mr Neil's
"neck of the woods"?

he is attempting to compare two different photos taken by two
different
photographers of two different subjects under different lighting
with
different exposures on two different mediums, and then claiming that
the only reason the results are different is because one is film and
the other is digital. that's completely absurd.

there are *far* too many variables to make the comparison even the
slightest bit useful.

it's also not needed since whatever 'film look' someone might want
can
be done with digital. simple fact.

You are changing the subject. Typical.

nothing was changed. not a single thing.

Bull****.

bull**** right back.

The original discussion was about film photography vs digital
photography in general. Now here you are writing as though the
discussion was about "two different photos taken by two different
photographers ... etc". Up till now no one was discussing "two
different photos taken by two different photographers ... etc" until
you introduced the topic.

nope. read it again. someone *else* brought the comparison.

Nope.

Prove me wrong by giving a quote.


scroll up.


Typical cop out.


it ain't me who is copping out.

Give me a quote.


scroll up. it's still there.
  #127  
Old April 21st 17, 03:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,702
Default Film scanners?

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

That means that the limit of digital performance is known.
Therefore
there is nothing new to be discovered or invented.

no it doesn't mean that at all. not even remotely close.

Conversely, if there are new things to be discovered or invented
then
the limits are not known and it is not possible to claim that
anyone
is using "digital to its maximum performance".

it's not only possible, but that's exactly what i claimed.

So you are claiming that there are people doing things which have not
yet been discovered?

nope.

So things which have not been discovered are not yet being done?

what does that have to do with anything???

Ah ha! By your equivocation I can tell that you now see the trap
before you.


what i see is yet another one of your ridiculous arguments.

I will answer for you: "Of course things which have not been
discovered are not being done".

To which I answer "Then if there are things which have not been
discovered and are not being done then there is more to digital
photography than anyone knows how to do so nobody can possibly be
using 'digital to its maximum performance'".


entirely missing the point.


I think this will do for the end of the argument.


good

Typical.


for you, yes.
  #128  
Old April 21st 17, 03:34 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Barnabé
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Film scanners?

Savageduck wrote:


Unfortunately cataloging didn't seem
to be part of her methodology.


Yes and that proves how much she was far from bringing them to public
view...

That was left to the discoverers of her
work after her death, particularly John Maloof, without whom we might
never have known of her existence, or the existence of her work.


Her "discovery" was total luck...


--
Barnabé
  #129  
Old April 21st 17, 03:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,282
Default Film scanners?

On 2017-04-21 14:13:49 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Since when do we need a "reason" to pursue a hobby from which we
derive pleasure? Since when is someone else's way of pursuing a hobby
not legitimate?

Not one person is arguing that film is not a legitimate pursuit. It's
the claims of the superiority of film output that we are arguing
about.

Who made that claim? I've followed this thread, and nospam has denied
that claim, but he's denying something that hasn't been claimed.


it was claimed.

This is what nospam does to a thread to create an argument where there
should not be an argument. The thread started on the subject of
scanners. Then, Russell D. posted: "Exactly what I was thinking when
I bought my CoolScan. Then I got bored with digital and started
shooting film again. Glad I didn't sell it."

No claim that film is superior. No claim that he can do something
with film that can't be done with digital. Just a simple statement
that he started shooting film again.


in another post, he claimed film can do things digital cannot. that is
a completely bogus claim.

once again, you are twisting things.

nospam had to jump in and say: "bored with digital? there's so much
more it can do versus film." and Russell replied "Why do I need it to
do more?".

nospam, delighted to be able to start yet another argument while
putting-down someone else's preference and insult their ability wrote:
"why limit yourself? if you're satisfied with mediocre, go for it."

In other words, nospam feels that anyone shooting film is only capable
of mediocre output.


*film* is only capable of mediocre output.


Define mediocre in terms of photographic output.

I have seen some pretty mediocre output from digital and film cameras
alike. I have also seen great great images captured on film and digital
cameras. The medium used to capture photographic images is not what
determines the excellence of any photographic image, it is the
intangibles of scene/subject selection, composition and most
importantly, the intent and capability of the photographer. There are
thousands, ...er, millions of digital photographers who have captured
100's of millions of images of nothing but mediocre output. However,
digital has provided a platform for many photographers with the
experience, talent and ability to learn for the production of great
images, and the same can be said for many of those with the same
dedication to film.

it has nothing to do with the person using it.

anyone choosing film, for whatever reason, has limited themselves.
simple fact.

It's typical of nospam to do this. He creates dissension where there
is no dissension.


it's actually *you* who does that, going so far to fabricate things so
you can argue.

It's not a film shooter that has claimed superiority. It's the person
who says that film shooters can only produce mediocre results that is
claiming superiority.


wrong.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #130  
Old April 21st 17, 04:28 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,702
Default Film scanners?

In article , -hh
wrote:


Another aspect of this is the limits of human perception.
This has already become a point of conversation in tech
circles, as the resolution technology has outstripped
what the viewer is capable of perceiving, because the
human eye has a finite number of cones/rods with which
to perceive the image. Apple's iPhone4's "retina" display
was when this first generally came to public awareness, as
it has also with 4K+ HDTV displays: at their respective
typical viewing differences, higher resolutions can no
longer be perceived.


for resolution, sure. except that resolution isn't the only metric.

modern displays now have wider colour gamuts, higher dynamic range and
more accurate colour.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2017 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.