I’m just starting to move to advanced amateur in my photographing but I must start to increase the time I spend photographing to get further improvement and 135 system is cheaper to use for training. I already see the need for a LF Field camera and it on my list.
So im reading a lot of photo books but I need to take photographs and to display my photographs (when I have a few good ones) for the publics.
Actually, I don't use just one scanner. At home I have a Minolta 5400II Elite. However, some slides (depending upon the subject matter) I have scanned on a Imacon or a Heidelberg Tango drum scanner. The one thing I particulary like about the Minolta is the the multi-sampling it allows (up to 16x), which really helps bring out detail in the shadows.
However, it isn't just the scanning, the software used to process the image is also very important. For example, I use software like Kodak GEM to manage the grain the image shows. I used to use Photoshop CS2 for preparing images for the web, but have since started using Adobe Lightroom 1.1 (which is even better).
My favorite combination are my Leica rangefinders and my Leitz enlarger. The two together make wonderful sharp prints. My wife and I display prints 16x20 from the Leica and we have sold several over the years.
I have not tested, but I would think my Leica negs and an Imacon 949 type scanner would produce much better tonal values than what I get from my D2x. And I would get to use my Leica in the field which is much more enjoyable than the D2x for me.
As far as film format goes. 120mm will die sooner than 35mm or 4x5 in my opinion. I know of very few photographers using 120 in the professional world. Market demand I suppose. If I owned a 120 format camera system,(does my Holga count? ) I would seriously think of selling it first before my Leica or Technika systems.
I am going to go out on a limb here and predict that 35mm reversal film will likely disappear soon. Reason: costs and lack of clear benefit to the average Joe (and Hollywood's inevitable move to digital). Color negative will be around for quite some time due to to both an established infrastructure as well as one clear benefit not offered by any DSLR: 10-12 stops of dynamic range. Pretty much all DSLRs match the 6-stops dynamic range of color reversal film -- but they are not likely to be able to increase DR for many years to come due to the essential limits of ROI and electronic circuit design.
So, in my book, the only sure bet would be with color negative film. Color reversal is an "iffy" bet long-term IMHO. You are free to disagree of course!
Perhaps, but Fuji just posted, over a series of months, a list of labs still doing E6. Additionally, we here sometimes are just too US focused. There are places like the UK, where film, slide film as well, are alive and well. Personally, I think color negative will disappear before color slide film.
Personally, I think the recent announcements by Fuji are designed to hit Kodak where they are weak: advanced amateurs and artists. Classic Japanese to take the long-view. Likely Kodak will fold and leave the entire color slide market to Fuji -- given the bias the Kodak board has shown towards short-term profits and aversion to any long-term investments.
Trouble is, Hollywood and Bollywood are in effect subsidizing 35mm film production. If we assume that a certain percentage loss to digital over each of the next dozen years, then the subsidy will eventually dry up, forcing prices to surge. Will advanced amateurs and artists be willing to foot the cost? Personally, I doubt it. As of 2007, the essential difference between a 10mp digital camera and 35mm slide film are already too close to call. (However, color neg wins with dynamic range -- which is why Hollywood will stick with it for creating masters -- but not necessarily for contact printing to color reversal film - for many years to come).
By ten years time, the cost of a mint Nikon F3 system (lenses included) will be below that of an entry-level digital camera. Why would economics favor film in such a case? The average global citizen simply won't care.
I'll agree with you here. Fuji is much more interested in the long term; one of the reasons I've stopped using Kodak over the years. Fuji continues to show its commitment to film; new films, film only contests, etc. However, when I speak of longevity of film, any film, it can no longer be measured in decades. Sadly, in my opinion, digital is still not to the point where I am ready to give up transparency film. That leaves me at a quandry when it eventually does; I guess I'l shoot B&W if it does.
I would have to disagree. I have a 10MP digital camera (Nikon D200) and I'll take the images I get out of my F5 loaded with Velvia over it any day. I see a major difference when the film is processed properly. But, you are welcome to your opinion.
By now, no more C41 tungsten film available... it looks like print film will died before slide film !
Bookmarks