AlanG Posted December 10, 2011 Share #81 Posted December 10, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) And dye transfer was probably killed by Cibachrome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 Hi AlanG, Take a look here 100% film based photography. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
gyoung Posted December 10, 2011 Share #82 Posted December 10, 2011 I use Provia most of the time, sometimes Astia in the past , and occasionally Ekta 100G. I used kodachrome for 40 years till Kodak ruined the processing in Europe,(slow and dusty in Switzerland) Scanning is NIKON Coolscan V it gives excellent results with even kodachrome which the older one didn't, neither does the Epson v750. More bits per channel than any camera I know of and 4000x6000 resolution, excellent quality Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted December 10, 2011 Share #83 Posted December 10, 2011 I did dye transfer once, a heroic process, never again! Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messsucherkamera Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share #84 Posted December 12, 2011 Regarding film based photography, I stumbled upon the following quote from Inigo Taylor earlier today. It seems to go straight to the heart of the matter - so much so that I decided to adopt it for my signature line: "The rigorous nature of 36 exposures, a fixed film speed and editing from a contact sheet are the best way to learn how to take photographs. My film camera is a Leica M6 - that is as close to perfection as a camera can get!" Hear, hear! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Studio58 Posted December 12, 2011 Share #85 Posted December 12, 2011 makes me feel even better that my only Leica film camera is an M6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
akiralx Posted December 13, 2011 Share #86 Posted December 13, 2011 I am strictly an amateur but shoot film and digital, mainly the latter. I have never developed a film in my life but used to print my own pictures in my teens. It was quite rewarding but I can't see the advantage of working in a darkroon inhaling chemicals when I can be sitting at my Mac in comfort listening to music while working on digital files. Scanning films is a massive pain, and most of the people who might want to see my work are family in Europe on the other side of the world, so digital it is - though I occasionaly send them prints. I must confess I like using photoshop - I even PP old LP covers to get the original coverart for my iPod! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alw Posted December 17, 2011 Share #87 Posted December 17, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I wish I could shoot only film, but as I don´t have room for an enlarger, film means scanning the negatives, which is killing me with all the dust I have to remove and the time it takes for the scanner to process the negatives. Perhaps I should get a real film scanner, but those are frighteningly costly. And yes, I´m impatient too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted December 17, 2011 Share #88 Posted December 17, 2011 Dust is dust whatever process you use, and scanning a colour image and making a colour print via PhotoShop is far, far quicker than any 'traditional' process involving chemicals and an enlarger. Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.