abrewer Posted March 14, 2007 Author Share #41 Posted March 14, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) The problem with scanning is that it's impossible to extract all information that is in the emulsion with normal equipment. Even an 11000 DPI drum scanner only yields a final result of below 10 MP with a 80 lp/mm film (=~ 40 MP) negative or slide. Thanks for your post ennjott. Unfortunately, I don't think this kind of thinking is very productive. Modern scanners, even the scanning from one-hour machines in discount stores, can do a very, very good job (good enough for ninety-nine percent of our purposes). This "thinking in pixels" mindset bothers me greatly. It reached its flashpoint last weekend when, at a pro photo convention in Dayton, I overheard a sales person admonishing a customer that his "pixels weren't big enough" for some purpose or other. Roll eyes. When will the BS ever end? It wasn't enough to separate cash from clients over megapixel counts that creep up incrementally to insure planned obsolescence. Now the escalator is "bigger pixels"? Oy! Enough! Give me my film camera and to hell with this nonsense! Come back to me when you've got it right, and don't insult my intelligence!!! Thanks. Allan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 Hi abrewer, Take a look here Shoot Film and Scan!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
arthury Posted March 14, 2007 Share #42 Posted March 14, 2007 To me, the closest thing to being grainless is to scan a fine grained chrome. A well shot and developed chrome seems to produce a scan that requires very little editing in PS, besides a modest amount of SmartSharpening. IMHO, images from scanned negs cannot withstand a direct comparison with digital images on the web because of the emulsion clouds on the negative. It makes scanning perplexing, too. For scanned Tri-X, Marc's images are about the best ones I have seen because he was using a $10K Imacon to scan it and probably, he enjoys it and puts in more effort. Even so, there's still something unusual about it when it is crunched into a JPG & posted on the web. So, what's my point? These are based on my experiences with my previous scanner Canoscan FS4000 and my current Nikon SuperCoolscan 9000ED: Shoot chrome and scan if you want to succeed most of the time and spend less time. If you want to tinker, shoot color negs, scan and tinker. If you want to be an artisan, shoot true B&W negs, scan, and construct your image. There's no guarantee in this option. You may occasionally pull out your hair and vomit blood, too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andit Posted March 14, 2007 Share #43 Posted March 14, 2007 Hi all, I must agree with Allan on this one. The story that is now surfacing with regards to pixel size is just some fantastic invention for the camera manufacturers to force you to upgrade and put the great equipment that you already have into the proverbial "trash can". If you load a roll of film, any film, into any camera, even if it is 30+ years old, you still get great results. Sadly to say, I don't think our M8's will be going in 30 years time anymore - our film M's will still be running.... My 2 cents worth. Andreas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfspencer Posted March 15, 2007 Share #44 Posted March 15, 2007 George, if you have any specific questions or problems ask. You'll find people very helpful. If you can post examples illustrating any issues you may have. Scanning can be a bit of an uphill struggle at first, but it isn't that difficult to get good results. Thanks! I'll probably be asking some questions as I learn more. Right now I don't know what questions to ask. But here are a few to start - 1. What is Bit Depth? I see that I have a choice between 8 and 14. Which is "best"? 2 If I am scanning C41 black & white film do I treat it like color negative film or black & white negative film?? Opinions are welcome. Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleeson Posted March 15, 2007 Share #45 Posted March 15, 2007 8 bits per color allows easy processing in PS Elements, otherwise I found huge files at 12 bits, and had to convert to 8 to process. Couldn't see any difference in final result. Maybe someone has different experience with the "real" Photoshop. C41 scans as color negative, grayscale. If scanned as B&W, digital ICE doesn't work and you'll go nuts fixing dust spots. I use Vuescan, earlier with Coolscan IV, now with 9000. Another general comment is the fact that having a slide is the ultimate backup, if the computer and backup drive both fail, all is not lost... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfspencer Posted March 15, 2007 Share #46 Posted March 15, 2007 8 bits per color allows easy processing in PS Elements, otherwise I found huge files at 12 bits, and had to convert to 8 to process. Couldn't see any difference in final result. Thanks! I use PS Elements too so I will probably stick with 8 bits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guywalder Posted March 15, 2007 Share #47 Posted March 15, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) George, just to expand on bit depth, the higher the bit depth -> the greater the number of graduations from 'completely black' to 'completely white'. If you find yourself doing a lot of post processing then you are better of starting with a higher bit depth, however the files are bigger, typically twicethe size. The question is (IMHO) do you really need the extra info in a 12 bit scan?? I tend to scan in 14 bit mode, but I am far from convinced that the difference is appreciable when printing at A3+ on my Epson 2100. Mind you, it may be that my printer profiles are the weak link........ Guy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted March 15, 2007 Share #48 Posted March 15, 2007 As to "pixel size", there is something to this. The reason the consumer digicams have so much more noise than DSLR's that have the same # of pixels is that the sensor is much smaller. If there are 6 million pixels each on larger/smaller sensors the pixel "size" varies accordingly. Larger pixels gather more light thus getting a higher signal/noise ratio, and this is a critical factor in how much sensor noise appears in the image. The salesman may have been talking nonsense, but this is a real factor. best.....Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guywalder Posted March 16, 2007 Share #49 Posted March 16, 2007 Peter, I think the point Alan was making is that its easy to get caught up in a load of technical BS and loose sight of the 'real' objective of making good (technically good enough) pictures. I agree absolutely with Alan's point, yet i still find myself pixelpeeping and agonising about some detail of the digital workflow.... Yes, there are some technical advantages in having larger pixels, up to a point, but its only 1 of many factors.... Guy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted March 16, 2007 Share #50 Posted March 16, 2007 Give me my film camera and to hell with this nonsense! Bout time you learned to tow the line and move with the times Allan. Buy an M8. Sell me your MP, I could do with another. I mean why would I want an M8? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_r_smith Posted March 16, 2007 Share #51 Posted March 16, 2007 We're fighting a rearguard action here, chaps. The battle for hearts and minds is perhaps already lost. What are the odds on this for a scenario - 2008 Leica introduce the all-digital R10 2009 Leica introduce the 12MP M9 2010 Leica announce they will no longer manufacture film cameras John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted March 16, 2007 Share #52 Posted March 16, 2007 We're fighting a rearguard action here, chaps. The battle for hearts and minds is perhaps already lost. What are the odds on this for a scenario - 2008 Leica introduce the all-digital R10 2009 Leica introduce the 12MP M9 2010 Leica announce they will no longer manufacture film cameras John A scenario I should be not surprised if come true... but imagine 2010 is too early to kill film Leicas manufacturing... i envision more a sort of "a-la-carte-only" product strategy... after all, when you have no more to invest in development of a good and stable product, you can manage the residual demand for years and years by customers that have no problem to WAIT for THEIR OWN product... and pay for it; There could be also a collateral problem when they kill Leica film cameras... no more cameras, why go on with lenses for them? Which shall be the CCD dimensions in 3-4 years ? Would not be 24x36, and with film OUT... they will start to make "digi only" lenses...a question that already has arisen in our forum... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted March 16, 2007 Share #53 Posted March 16, 2007 John- Might be a possible scenario but more likely : 2008 UN announces through the IPCC that "Dust to Dust" cost of digital cameras is excessive due to their short life cycle and high battery cost, - and that manufacturers will have to pay a climate change charge on all digital cameras. 2009 Film camera sales outstrip digital sales for first time this century. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted March 16, 2007 Share #54 Posted March 16, 2007 2008 UN announces through the IPCC that "Dust to Dust" cost of digital cameras is excessive due to their short life cycle and high battery cost, - and that manufacturers will have to pay a climate change charge on all digital cameras. Funny you've mentioned about that, Anthony. I guess this is just NOT the appropriate time to talk about "global warming" when a huge area in North America has to dig out from snow and suffer from the coldest winter in so many year, now that's what I call "inconvenient truth". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted March 16, 2007 Share #55 Posted March 16, 2007 Simon - 1998 was the hottest year in recent centuries. Every year since then has been cooler. Adding a special tax to digital cameras is just the sort of thing the Al Gore Hysteria Clinic would plumb for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWW Posted March 17, 2007 Share #56 Posted March 17, 2007 I have scanned my M7 and MP photos for years using a number of different film types with my Nikon Coolscan V and have been extremely happy with the results, mostly printing 13x19 but ever since I started using my M8, I've been overwhelmed by the quality of the prints from this camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikel Posted March 18, 2007 Share #57 Posted March 18, 2007 Simon - 1998 was the hottest year in recent centuries. Every year since then has been cooler. Adding a special tax to digital cameras is just the sort of thing the Al Gore Hysteria Clinic would plumb for. It's too bad people don't understand or have not learned the consequences of global warming. I never know whether to criticize the scientists for not getting this information out or if it is due to the individual. Global warming does not mean all places will get warmer!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted March 18, 2007 Share #58 Posted March 18, 2007 Peter,I think the point Alan was making is that its easy to get caught up in a load of technical BS and loose sight of the 'real' objective of making good (technically good enough) pictures. I agree absolutely with Alan's point, yet i still find myself pixelpeeping and agonising about some detail of the digital workflow.... Yes, there are some technical advantages in having larger pixels, up to a point, but its only 1 of many factors.... Guy Guy- I absolutely agree with you. It's one reason I'm heading into film, away from chimping, and toward photographing. ;>) best...Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.