Interspersed > [Original Message] > From: Markus Maurer
> I would never scan *a perfectly negative* to the computer to edit or print > it, why should I do that? Exactly - yet it'd done with greater and greater frequency. > A classic enlarged print from a negative is better and a lot cheaper IMHO > than a print on a good inkjet. I won't argue that point. > I scan negatives only to send photos via email or for PDML or to correct > errors and crop on the computer before > sending them to the lab for printing. The computer is a nice tool for > improving old or damaged negatives. I enjoy scanning negs as it allows me a simple way to make "proof prints" and play with cropping and such before deciding what to do in the way of a final print and without having to set up the darkroom just to quickly check an idea or concept And it's a good way to get some feedback from other photogs. > I will only print b/w at home now since I got so bad results from the labs. > And frankly, I enjoy taking photos with my old equipment and could do well > without all that computer work afterwards... Yes, old gear is nice to use, but then, so is new gear. For me, the simplicity of old cameras allows an easier, less distracting way to shoot. In some ways using older cameras can be more like using a P&S camera than some P&S cameras are <LOL> >-----Original Message----- > >>From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 6:36 PM > >>To: [email protected] > >>Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware > >> > >> > >>This has nothing to do with a film v digital debate. My comment was in > >>response to Bob's and pointed out something I find rather odd which deals, > >>not with digital, but with film. Lighten up, Godfrey ... ;-)) Doesn't it > >>seem odd to you that someone would take a perfectly good negative and > >>reduce its quality by running it through a scanner and photo editing > >>software when a perfectly fine print could be made directly from the > >>original negative? Or are you so enmeshed in the digital > >>workflow that the > >>concept of working directly with a negative is little more than a vague > >>memory? > >> > >>Sure, there are any number of reasons why someone may want to > >>convert a neg > >>to a digital file in order to make a print (damaged neg, need for digital > >>file for professional reasons, making major adjustments that > >>can't or which > >>would be very difficult to do otherwise), but there are those that just do > >>such a conversion of perfectly good negs as a matter of course, > >>and for the > >>life of me I cannot figure out why that may be in some circumstances. > >> > >>Shel > >> > >> > >>> [Original Message] > >>> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> To: <[email protected]> > >>> Date: 5/15/2005 9:15:42 AM > >>> Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware > >>> > >>> Is there some reason that you are trying to draw out yet another > >>> idiotic "film versus digital" debate? > >>> > >>> Godfrey > >>> > >>> > >>> On May 15, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > >>> > >>> > A couple of days ago a friend and I were talking about the rather > >>> > convoluted workflow some of us go through at times. We buy good > >>> > quality > >>> > cameras, the highest quality lenses we can afford, test and > >>retest film > >>> > looking for that which gives the finest grain and highest resolution > >>> > and > >>> > detail, and then scan the film using, at best, mediocre scanners > >>> > (sometimes > >>> > at rather low resolution), run the mess through photo editing > >>software > >>> > to > >>> > correct and enhance lost color and sharpness, destroying even more of > >>> > the > >>> > original negative, and then print the mess on an inkjet printer > >>> > (sometimes > >>> > purchased with low price paramount to highest quality) or > >>send it to a > >>> > lab > >>> > somewhere that'll make a print cheaply - sometimes even via FTP or > >>> > email - > >>> > where the techs have no idea what the final result is supposed to look > >>> > like, and, bada-bing, we have the modern photograph. What's > >>wrong with > >>> > this picture? <LOL> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Shel > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >> [Original Message] > >>> >> From: Bob Blakely > >>> > > >>> >> Ain't film wonderful! the grain is entirely random! No anti-aliasing > >>> > filter > >>> >> required! FYI, anti-aliasing filters are not like the ubiquitous UV > >>> > filter. > >>> >> By their nature, they must add minor, shall we say, distortions to > >>> > perform > >>> >> their function. > >>> >> > >>> >> Regards, > >>> >> Bob... > >>> >> ------------------------------------------------ > >>> >> "A picture is worth a thousand words, > >>> >> but it uses up three thousand times the memory." > >>> >> > >>> >> From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> >> > >>> >>> On 14 May 2005 at 8:21, Bob W wrote: > >>> >>> > >>> >>>> AA filter? Does that prevent Leica photographers taking photos like > >>> > Ansel > >>> >>>> Adams? > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> If not, what actually is an AA filter? > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Anti-Aliasing > >>> >>> > >>> >>> http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/an/anti-aliasing.htm > >>> > > >>> > > >> > >> > >> >
