Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography



I agree: I've had a D70 for a couple of years, and now a D200.  Most
photos are ultimately compromised by something other than absolute
(film/pixel) resolution, in my experience (perhaps I'm a lousy
photographer?).  For instance, depth of field, motion/shake, v. slight
auto-focus error etc. etc. 

Previous to "going digital" I had an OM10 followed by a couple of
Minolta SLR's. I was somewhat shocked when I tried scanning some old
negs to find there was little or no improvement gained by scanning above
the default resolution set on the Minolta Dimage 5400 (1350dpi). This is
roughly equivalent to 2Mp. Perhaps this is down to using "ordinary"
film, but I'd say that a good 3 megapixel camera will give similar or
better results to those I used to obtain from analogue.   

John Sykes   







-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of
?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=E5kon_T_S=F8nderland?=
Sent: 08 June 2007 09:59
To: john@sykesj.co.uk
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography


ppatton@bgnet.bgsu.edu wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestions about my Polaroid SprintScan.  I got home 
> too late tonight to try them, but will soon.  This list is much more 
> helpful than Polaroid tech support.  I also have some questions on 
> another matter.  I'm considering buying a Nikon D200 digital camera, 
> and I'd like some opinions on the relative merits of film followed by 
> scanning vs. digital photography.  Are there still any major 
> advantages to sticking with film plus scanning over going fully 
> digital?  (I'll still need to have a working scanner anyway, because I

> have lots of old slides that I haven't scanned yet). I do lots of 
> macrophotography (mostly butterflies and dragonflies), as well as 
> landscape photography and would especially appreciate comments on the 
> relative merits of film plus scanning vs. digital photography for 
> these sorts of applications.
>

I'm no expert, but for me the advantages of a digital SLR (which I 
presume you know already) far outweighs any disadvantages compared to
the film plus scanning procedure.

I have the Nikon D200 and I think you can look forward to great results
both in landscapes and macro photography.  With the amount of time you
save from not having to scan you should get a lot more photography done
:) Shoot in RAW, get a good workflow program (like Adobe Lightroom) and
you should get great results.

Outside of special interests (and possibly B&W photography) I would say
the debate is over (IMHO).

Hkon
-- 
We shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender
http://www.getfirefox.com/

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in
the message title or body

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/838 - Release Date:
07/06/2007 14:21
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/838 - Release Date:
07/06/2007 14:21
 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.