On Mon, 8 May 2006 22:46:36 US/Eastern, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I, as many on this list will be very upset if BW disappears.
snip
Even I, a BW diehard, have to admit that the appropriate phraseology
ought to be: when BW disappears... :-(
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept.
frank theriault wrote:
On Mon, 8 May 2006 22:46:36 US/Eastern, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I, as many on this list will be very upset if BW disappears.
snip
Even I, a BW diehard, have to admit that the appropriate phraseology
ought to be: when BW disappears... :-(
cheers,
frank
I'd expect BW
On 5/9/06, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd expect BW labs to eventually disappear. I don't expect BW film to
disappear, and you can make the necessary chemicals and paper (Well, not
silver gelatin, but Platinum Palladium paper is relatively easy to make).
At worst, we'll be shooting
If you really want I have recipes for silver gelatin paper around here
somewhere...
Adam Maas wrote:
frank theriault wrote:
On Mon, 8 May 2006 22:46:36 US/Eastern, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I, as many on this list will be very upset if BW disappears.
snip
Even I, a BW diehard, have to admit
On 5/5/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Optical prints are, for all practical purposes, extinct.
snip
I'm not sure what you mean by for all practical purposes, but I have
no problem finding places to produce wet-process prints here in
Toronto.
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a
Most, (all of the ones around where I live), local labs use machines,
and all(?) recent machines make a digital scan of the negative and print
from that. I can't think of a single place around here that you could
get a color print made with an old fashioned enlarger, even if it were
a wet
- Original Message -
From: frank theriault
Subject: Re: Analog versus Digital Shootout
I'm not sure what you mean by for all practical purposes, but I have
no problem finding places to produce wet-process prints here in
Toronto.
Large population centers are slow to adapt
On 5/8/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Large population centers are slow to adapt to the trend, since the
population base is sufficient to keep a few places open for the weirdos that
still shoot film and want custom wet prints.
I suspect Ryerson is also having an effect in Toronto.
frank theriault wrote:
On 5/8/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Large population centers are slow to adapt to the trend, since the
population base is sufficient to keep a few places open for the
weirdos that
still shoot film and want custom wet prints.
I suspect Ryerson is also
Luckily it is pretty easy to set up for BW in the bathroom (best if
there are no small children who can't wait), or basement, or even a
closet. Modern young people, and tired old people like myself, are too
lazy to bother with a temporary darkroom these days, but throughout most
of
Frank Said:
As for Toronto Black and White, they're the largest black and white
lab that I know of in town. Lord knows how much more time they've got
left.
Just for those of you who aren't familiar, Toronto is a city of some 3
million (metropolitan),
This one time, at band camp, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because most photographic projects now involve a digital source, almost
all photographic projects favor digital. The exception would be
personal hobby photography. For that, film is still great.
On May 5, 2006, at 2:51
From: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anyhow, to settle the debate, film is better.
Mark!
-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 5/7/06, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anyhow, to settle the debate, film is better.
Mark!
Damn, beat me to it.
:-)
Dave S.
The public is fickle in its demands. When digital was expensive only
pros, serious amateurs, and rich people had digital cameras at that was
what people thought was supposed to be used. Now they have a digital
camera built into their cel-phone, you can buy one at Wal-Mart for under
$20 there
When I first took up photography, BW was the province of amateurs, and
the pros shot their kodachrome. Everything is cyclical.
Paul
On May 7, 2006, at 10:08 AM, graywolf wrote:
The public is fickle in its demands. When digital was expensive only
pros, serious amateurs, and rich people had
On May 7, 2006, at 1:50 AM, Kevin Waterson wrote:
Anyhow, to settle the debate, film is better.
I'm glad that's settled.
Now I know that all film manufacture will be discontinued forever soon.
Godfrey
Previously written;
Is direct digital better than a film to digital image? How about a
first class optical print compared to a cheap inkjet print viewed at
100x magnification. Now that is an oranges to apples comparison
instead of this usual apples to oranges comparison.
GRIN!
graywolf
On May 6, 2006, at 1:44 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
Usually, which seems to be a part of human nature (especially male)
there is a tendency to neglect the other toy...
I'm weird in that I have my comfort zone and it takes a good push out
of it to get me to use something new. I bought that
I still regret never having used that lens on my 6x7. I watched for a
used one, but never found one. I probably should have bought one new. I
spent more on the DA 12-24. But I think my film days are largely over.
However, I regret not having shot with that lens. You produced some
great work
Hi!
Usually, which seems to be a part of human nature (especially male)
there is a tendency to neglect the other toy...
I'm weird in that I have my comfort zone and it takes a good push out
of it to get me to use something new. I bought that 75mm f2.8AL for the
6x7, and after a flurry of
These are the major points of my current workflow...
I scan to preserve the highlights, although I don't worry too much
about small, bright reflections. I do this by using the exposure
controls in the scanner software - I've found that all the other
adjustments are best left to Photoshop.
On May 5, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
The author of the test didn't say that. In fact, he scanned the 6x6 at
a fairly high resolution.
He said he sized both files to make a 240 dpi 20x30. 240 dpi at 20x30
from 6x6 is not all that high -- that scanner is capable of much more.
From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/05/06 Sat AM 05:44:06 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Analog versus Digital Shootout
Hi!
It's still a shocking scan as is the post processing of the direct digital
capture, it's difficult to derive any useful
Hi!
Fascinating articles... What also occurs to me is this. Consider
Mamiya 7 article. The guy there definitely *knows well* how to work
with Mamiya 7. The adoption of digital camera does not happen
overnight, it takes time, lots of time. Usually, which seems to be
a part of human nature
That's true. It was sized down for printing. He should have printed it
at 300 or 360. But the web images would have been resized anyway, and
that's all we're seeing here. I'm sure he did something wrong, but I'm
betting it was lousy scans. The difference is too big for any other
explanation.
Film advertising claimed the same thing. In the US we were treated to
Canon ads that showed someone in the stands of a football game shooting
tremendous, tight action shots with a cheap consumer zoom.
On May 6, 2006, at 4:29 AM, mike wilson wrote:
But Boris, the adverts imply that any
On May 5, 2006, at 8:41 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Because most photographic projects now involve a digital source,
almost all photographic projects favor digital. The exception would be
personal hobby photography. For that, film is still great.
Actually, my high-end work is always on film.
Oh, 12MP is fine for a very large range of applications. But that test
is not representative of film.
I saw your Clint message, by the way.
-Aaron
On May 6, 2006, at 7:51 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
That's true. It was sized down for printing. He should have printed it
at 300 or 360. But the
On May 5, 2006, at 8:26 PM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
Out of curiosity (and having read the parts of the thread that have
landed on my mailbox so far), is slide film designed to be scanned/
printed?
AFAIK the newest films were formulated to scan better than the older
ones. I'm going
On May 5, 2006, at 1:00 AM, graywolf wrote:
Intent.
I think you're right -- note also that he has thrown away two thirds of
the data from the drum scan. I'm going to do that with the scan I put
up for a comparison.
http://aaronreynolds.ca/albums/PDML/back_stairs_RVP_resized_chu.jpg
I guess that proves that Canon is far superior...
Norm
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For your enjoyment. I'm just the messenger..
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: Brian Schneider
Subject: Analog versus Digital Shootout
Hi David
what exactly is different now in your scanning technique?
Since I have to scan a lot . I love to learn ;-)
greetings
Markus
AFAIK the newest films were formulated to scan better than the older
ones. I'm going through my archives at the moment and I'm currently
doing a mix of
FWIW ... I've given up looking at web pages like this. The results
presented are rarely definitive and generally questionable as to
intent, practice and methodology. Whether the question of
analog (why do people refer to film as analog rather than film? i
find that expression so annoying)
My Man Godfrey,
A painter acquaintenance of mine made this fascinating statement:
Photography is for people who can't draw.
Though he did really like my 4x5 bw shot of the naked ladies lilies.
Collin
KC8TKA
The author of the test didn't say that. In fact, he scanned the 6x6 at
a fairly high resolution.
On May 5, 2006, at 2:58 PM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
Well, no -- because they threw away detail from the 6x6 scan to make
the resolutions equivalent, destroying the comparison.
-Aaron
Because most photographic projects now involve a digital source, almost
all photographic projects favor digital. The exception would be
personal hobby photography. For that, film is still great.
On May 5, 2006, at 2:51 PM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Kostas
On 5 May 2006 at 20:39, Paul Stenquist wrote:
The author of the test didn't say that. In fact, he scanned the 6x6 at
a fairly high resolution.
It's still a shocking scan as is the post processing of the direct digital
capture, it's difficult to derive any useful information from the test.
Hi!
It's still a shocking scan as is the post processing of the direct digital
capture, it's difficult to derive any useful information from the test.
Two other tests for your amusement:
Nikon D2X versus Mamiya 7
http://www.diax.nl/pages/start_mamiya_nikon_uk.html
Canon 1Ds mark II (16mp)
I suppose it proves nothing, but it's interesting. I've never been
confident in the quality of scans from even the best labs. That's part
of the reason why I advised Scott to jump. Is digital really better.
Dunno. But it works for me.
Paul
On May 4, 2006, at 8:28 PM, William Robb wrote:
For
Wow!
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Fw: Analog versus Digital Shootout
For your enjoyment. I'm just the messenger..
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: Brian Schneider
Subject: Analog versus Digital Shootout
For your enjoyment. I'm just the messenger..
William Robb
- Original Message - From: Brian Schneider Subject: Analog
versus Digital Shootout
http://www.ales.litomisky.com/shootout/analogversusdigitalshootout.htm
Looks about right... but I will say from my experience
On May 4, 2006, at 10:23 PM, Ryan K. Brooks wrote:
Looks about right... but I will say from my experience doing drum
scans, that Velvia 50 scans like shit. Always looks a bit out of
focus for some reason while a Provia 100F trans of the same thing
looks much better.
Velvia is kind of
The scans are clearly out of focus or upsized from a smaller file size,
since the grain is not clearly defined. Perhaps they tried to make
this a fair fight by degrading the quality of the film image to the
level of the digital image.
Here is an example from a non-drum scanner, the Polaroid
Intent.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
These do not display the funny digital artifacts that his film example
displays -- something must be totally wrong with
Optical prints are, for all practical purposes, extinct. Good inkjet
prints aren't cheap.
On May 5, 2006, at 12:56 AM, graywolf wrote:
Is direct digital better than a film to digital image? How about a
first class optical print compared to a cheap inkjet print viewed at
100x magnification.
46 matches
Mail list logo
