I'm out, bye guys.
I'm out, bye guys.
Me too!Originally Posted by StoneNYC
Maybe he feels hurt cause my digital looked like Portra to him and that kind of defeats the point of having to mess with small format film, right? I gave up on roll film after many years once I got a better handle on my digital processing. I still shoot plenty of large format film because I like the slower process and the image quality that I get with it. But when shooting loose handheld stuff, the experience of handling a digital SLR or mirrorless versus a 35mm film camera is almost the same - weight, feel, speed. A Nikon F100 is the same footprint as a D100-810. My Fuji X100t shooting feels uncannily like how I used to shoot a Leica M film camera.
Here's another deceitful digital shot, I think she's having a good laugh at the drama of relative newbie making a fuss and proclaiming his glorious, puritanical exit:
Seriously though, if one could afford a really good roll film scanner then there might be a good argument to continue using it. But if you are budget limited to the relatively inexpensive desktop 35mm scanners or the choice of a flatbed... then you're giving up a lot of the quality and virtues of roll film. I can scan large format on my cheap flatbed and get reasonably useful scan but I can not make a good scan from roll film with a cheap scanner. And I'm not willing to pay for or take the time required to scan roll film to the higher standard since I tend to shoot more frames than I would shoot large format. If a decent quality 4x5 scan and rough edit from an Epson takes 10-15 minutes for each negative, then confronting a few rolls of 35mm or 120 is overwhelming several days of work.
That's probably why you see the johnny-come-lately hipsters leave so many imperfections in their film scans.
Nice one, Richard.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
+111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Maybe he feels hurt cause my digital looked like Portra to him and that kind of defeats the point of having to mess with small format film, right? I gave up on roll film after many years once I got a better handle on my digital processing. I still shoot plenty of large format film because I like the slower process and the image quality that I get with it. But when shooting loose handheld stuff, the experience of handling a digital SLR or mirrorless versus a 35mm film camera is almost the same - weight, feel, speed. A Nikon F100 is the same footprint as a D100-810. My Fuji X100t shooting feels uncannily like how I used to shoot a Leica M film camera.
Here's another deceitful digital shot, I think she's having a good laugh at the drama of relative newbie making a fuss and proclaiming his glorious, puritanical exit:
Seriously though, if one could afford a really good roll film scanner then there might be a good argument to continue using it. But if you are budget limited to the relatively inexpensive desktop 35mm scanners or the choice of a flatbed... then you're giving up a lot of the quality and virtues of roll film. I can scan large format on my cheap flatbed and get reasonably useful scan but I can not make a good scan from roll film with a cheap scanner. And I'm not willing to pay for or take the time required to scan roll film to the higher standard since I tend to shoot more frames than I would shoot large format. If a decent quality 4x5 scan and rough edit from an Epson takes 10-15 minutes for each negative, then confronting a few rolls of 35mm or 120 is overwhelming several days of work.
That's probably why you see the johnny-come-lately hipsters leave so many imperfections in their film scans.
Tin Can
This is not a digital camera website. Live with it and go elsewhere. Film and LF are not that expensive, I now use a roll film back for my colour due to financial restraints ( sorry lads but colour has really got a "u" in it) I'm living on a state pension (topped up with a small private pension), I have a disabled wife and I would never consider placing a digi image on this forum. The rules need revising, when I joined about 14 years ago I never imagined that this situation could ever arise, and I owned a "high tech" Sony Marvica and a box of floppy discs.
Pete.
14 years ago digital barely existed.
Times change.
The mods have addressed this. They run the show. Not us.
Tin Can
If this forum is going into d.... shit,
I´ll leave it!
I'll have to live with digi backs on LF cameras but crappy little Nikons and Cannons have their place elsewhere.
Pete.
Well if you rather not see these that's OK, real Americans don't give a hoot.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks