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 sent this message out on July 2nd, but I don't think it got posted, at
least I never received a copy... so I'm trying again.

If it did get posted, I apologize for the redundancy.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Re: [filmscanners] film and scanning vs digital photography
Date:   Mon, 02 Jul 2007 02:25:49 -0700
From:   Arthur Entlich <artistik@shaw.ca>
To:     filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
References:     <1183330447-16454.00023.00014-smmsdV2.1.6@smtp.bgsu.edu>

I find the camera requirements rather laughable, and quite out of date.

I'm not saying you'll go wrong with what they recommend, but the truth
is the same exact Sony chip in the DX-200 is also to be found in the
D-80, the Sony Alpha, the Pentax K10D  (which is also the only camera
using a 32 bit A>D chip) and probably numerous other cameras. I imagine
the camera requirements are to bias toward people who are "serious"
photographers, because the cameras they list are all of the costlier
models.  Notice they don't mention which lenses have to be used...

You see, they can determine which camera was used to shoot an image with
the exif file, but they can't tell the lens necessarily.  Also, with
film, they had no idea which camera was used.  I find this just a bit of
elitism at work because they can.  I wonder if anyone has figured out a
way to rewrite and edit the exif files yet?

As to the scanners... I'm sure it helps them to get better quality
scans, assuming the scans are well done, and most of the scanners
involved are used commercially, so that probably also narrow the scope.

What would be interesting is to "test" Getty's reviewers and see if in a
blind test they could really tell the differences.  I do agree that
using a camera with a larger sensor improves quality and limits noise
considerably, (at least until Kodak's new matrix is worked out), but the
scans and using other cameras with  similar sensors... I doubt they'd
know which was which.


ppatton@bgnet.bgsu.edu wrote:

>One of the earlier posts in this thread mentioned that Getty
>Images  , a major stock photography company, posted their
>camera/scanner requirements on their website.  I went searching
>on their website today, and located their standards.  Here are
>their requirements for cameras:
>If you are shooting on a 35mm digital camera it must an approved
>camera from this list: Nikon D200, Nikon D2X, Canon EOS 30D,
>Canon EOS 5D, Canon EOS 1D MK 11, Canon EOS 1Ds, Canon EOS 1Ds MK
>11. All medium format backs (e.g. backs by Phase One and Leaf
>etc) produce sufficiently high quality images to be accepted by us.
>Here are their requirements for film scanners:
>We only accept digital files from scanned film if they have been
>drum scanned by a professional scanning house or scanned using
>the approved desk top film scanners from the following list:
>Imacon 949, 848, 646, 343; Fuji Lanovia Quattro and Finescan;
>Creo Eversmart Supreme 11, Eversmart Select 11, IQsmart 1,2,3
>I've never heard of any of these scanners and am somewhat shocked
>that not even the high end Nikon scanners are included in the list.
>The first one on the list, the Imacon 949 is a $5000 device,
>which probably explains why I've ever heard of it.  I didn't
>check the prices on the other scanners, but if they are equally
>ruinous, then it looks like the cheapest way to take stock
>quality photos is to get a digital camera like Nikon's D200
>(about $1300), rather than use film plus scanning.  Is it really
>true, as Getty's requirements would seem to suggest, that the
>Nikon D200 and D2X can produce better images than film plus a
>high end Nikon scanner like the SuperCoolscan 5000?  What are the
>prices for having photos professionally drum scanned?
>Dr. Paul Patton
>Life Sciences Building Rm 538A
>work: (419)-372-3858
>home: (419)-352-5523
>Biology Department
>Bowling Green State University
>Bowling Green, Ohio 43403
>"The most beautiful thing we can experience is
>the mysterious.  It is the source of all true art
>and science."
>-Albert Einstein

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.