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, for one am delighted to see the response to this question.  While
this list was created for those with advanced interest in film scanning,
a group has assembled within it that is keenly interested in photo
imaging - be it a scanned image or a digital image. Once scanned the
image is always a digital image anyway.  Although I shoot exclusively
with a digital camera today, I still scan negatives from years past and
I'm still learning how to get the most out of my SprintScan 120, as well
as my Canon 20D, and I value this list.

I agree with you, Tony, Digital cameras, for all practical purposes, has
surpassed the quality of 35mm format film and I believe that happened
with the arrival of the six megapixel camera, a few years ago,
significant cropping, not withstanding - grain being much more forgiving
than pixelization.

I think that digital imaging definitely has a place in this list, Tony.
I have confidence in and great respect for the core group of this list.
Digital imaging, film scanning and digicams are still evolving.  Just
some of the issues are RAW file converters, practical limits of pixel
density - have we reached it? How much do we really need?  And the
digital archiving issues, just to name a few.  I think you have a blue
ribbon group contained in this list, Tony.

Please keep it going,


Tony Sleep wrote:
> On 08/06/2007 ppatton@bgnet.bgsu.edu wrote:
>> Are there
>> still any major advantages to sticking with film plus scanning
>> over going fully digital?
> The reason this list is almost dead is, I suspect, that we have all
> switched to DSLR's.
> I have shot 2 rolls of film in the past 4 years, and those only because I
> wanted to match images to an old project shot on film. For me the
> advantages of dig are utterly overwhelming. I was never a fan of grain
> anyway and generally did what I could to avoid it, so the tonal smoothness
> of dig came as a relief rather than a repellent. Nor did I like slide, it
> was too temperamental and restrictive for the uncontrolled lighting I
> usually shoot in. With a decent DSLR and shooting RAW you get most of the
> latitude of colour neg with a whole lot more ability to control results.
> Just don't blow the highlights - dig is like slide in that respect, but
> you can dig into the shadows far deeper. CCD noise just isn't an issue
> most of the time, and where it is, s/w like NeatImage can be startlingly
> effective. Yes, I spend a lot of time at the PC doing post-prod, but less
> than I did with scanning.
> Film and dig are such different media it is hard to make direct
> comparisons, but for most purposes, and taste or religious attachment
> aside, dig far surpasses film now. Images from full-frame sensor cameras
> such as the Canon 1DS, 1DS-2 and 5D (the relative bargain here) are much
> closer to MF quality than 35mm.
> If you need convincing, download and print at 16x12" some of the sample
> full res images at http://www.steves-digicams.com/cameras_digpro.html
> --
> Regards
> Tony Sleep
> http://tonysleep.co.uk

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


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.