Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
I agree. I've noticed those commercials also. If it were three years ago (or maybe even two) I might have gotten one for family snapshots. Or would have at least bought one for my 80 year old father. Smart use of current technology. Maybe Kodak's not as backward as they lead us to believe. After all, they did it before Fuji did Larry Anyone who has been near a TV in the last month or two, at least in North America, has seen the Kodak camera ads which incorporate a digital image recorder AND normal 35mm or APS film. The system allows you to review the last image (at least) taken by the camera (on film), and if it didn't work, you can shoot again. This, to me is very innovative and smart use of technology, and not too costly either. You don't need a lot of memory, as it probably only records the last shot taken. The idea is not to keep the digital image, so it probably is not in high res either. It does require a color LCD panel, but those small ones much cost a few bucks these days. I wish my SLR had a device like that I could add to it, and if it were set up to mimic the basic characteristics of neg and or slide film, it would even reduce some of the need for bracketing. *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com http://IRDreams.com http://ImageCompress.com ***
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Yes, it is CT18 and CT20?, and they have all but disappeared. And, one would suspect the processing was done properly, because the rolls were sent to Agfa Germany. However, the rolls were so severely scratched during processing, that I have a difficult time believing they actually were processed in Germany. There were several batches sent too, so it wasn't just one bad day. Regarding the cellulose based films, apparently the Bettman collection Bill Gates bought is completely disintegrating, so they have given up on trying to scan most of them, since they claim it would take 25 years or more to accomplish and by then they will all be dust, ao they have moved the whole collection out of New York City and into some limestone caves somewhere, where maybe they will just rest in peace ? They also made mention i the article of a strong smell of acetic acid. AT first I thought they moved them just to keep the disaster out of the public eye, but maybe the coolness and alkaline nature of the limestone will slow down the process. Of course, they could have just invested in some more employees and equipment and scanned the work a little faster... Art Tony Sleep wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 17:05:10 -0700 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: other than Afga slides which used some weird process (CF??) which has failed completely on me Coo. I have a very few slides I shot on Agfa CT18 when I was a kid, c.1964. Despite negligent storage, the colours are still saturated and neutral. I found a colour neg of my dad's on unmasked Agfacolor col.neg, from 1958, and had it printed recently. Excellent, especially skin tones. Grass was a little yellowish, but that's all. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Derek wrote: If the camera is good enough for the application, then they not only get the pictures much more quickly, but they save a lot on film and processing. Absolutely, and I think I've mentioned that before (to a hail of bullets from dedicated film-users! ;-)). Also, Digital can give you an instant replay of what you've been doing, like a Polaroid back only faster. The problem quickly becomes how much initial cost is involved in good enough for the application? Presently, it presuposes a fairly rich steady bread butter use for the camera in question (the D1x, in this case), which has to be paid off in a matter of 3 years by income (to keep the technology current), exclusive of what money the photographer needs to continue photographing. Not as expensive as Kodak's earlier $30,000 earlier digital system, but not a walk in the park, either. As I've previously implied (or will shortly in this thread ;-)), this and other systems are for serious Pro use (or for those who have more money than they're currently needing--like the guy who buys a Blad just because he can). That's fine, well, and good, but not an excuse to run out and buy one, if the children have to starve. ;-) Best regards from the Rust Belt--LRA [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lynn Allen) wrote: OK, but the important question is What is a D1x? How expensive, compared to a good SLR? Film is a long way from dead (as Kodak has found out, probably to their great relief--or maybe not, considering how much they invested into the technology), but digital is catching up fast. IMHO, there's definitely room enough for both, but the speed of things is mind-boggling. Best regards--LRA From: Isaac Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:22:29 -0400 Tony Sleep wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:15:00 -0700 Karl Schulmeisters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Respectfully, many pros are switching to digital. For newspaper use it's standard now. But I was recently speaking to an AP photographer who was grumbling that he has to try and shoot everything twice now - on dig for the wire, and film for the magazine market which AP are now trying to muscle in on. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons Check out http://www.dpreview.com/news/0106/01062301d1xtwopagespread.asp for the story of a two page spread in Sports Illustrated shot on a Nikon D1x. If this looks decent (I haven't seen the mag yet), it could be the end for film in weekly magazines... Isaac _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Lynn says: Not as expensive as Kodak's earlier $30,000 earlier digital system, but not a walk in the park, either. As with older filmscanners, the older pro digital backs can be had pretty cheaply on eBay. A friend of mine got a Kodak DCS420 (one of the $30,000 pro systems you're talking about) for under $1,000 on eBay. -- Todd Radel - [EMAIL PROTECTED] SCHWAG.ORG - Where Freaks and Geeks Come Together http://www.schwag.org/ PGP key available at http://www.schwag.org/~thr/pgpkey.txt
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Todd wrote: A friend of mine got a Kodak DCS420 (one of the $30,000 pro systems you're talking about) for under $1,000 on eBay. Now *that's* an interesting proposition. Does anyone know the particular specs? (I don't--that 30k was so far out of my price range I never bothered to follow up). Where would one do a look-up? Best regards--LRA From: Todd Radel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 15:25:01 -0400 Lynn says: Not as expensive as Kodak's earlier $30,000 earlier digital system, but not a walk in the park, either. As with older filmscanners, the older pro digital backs can be had pretty cheaply on eBay. A friend of mine got a Kodak DCS420 (one of the $30,000 pro systems you're talking about) for under $1,000 on eBay. -- Todd Radel - [EMAIL PROTECTED] SCHWAG.ORG - Where Freaks and Geeks Come Together http://www.schwag.org/ PGP key available at http://www.schwag.org/~thr/pgpkey.txt _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
You don't save that much on processing. And remmember, a $3500 premium (vs top end film Nikon or Canon) buys quite a bit of processing - especially at bulk rates. What it saves in sports and news shots is Time To Cover. - Original Message - From: Derek Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 3:19 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings If the camera is good enough for the application, then they not only get the pictures much more quickly, but they save a lot on film and processing. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lynn Allen) wrote: OK, but the important question is What is a D1x? How expensive, compared to a good SLR? Film is a long way from dead (as Kodak has found out, probably to their great relief--or maybe not, considering how much they invested into the technology), but digital is catching up fast. IMHO, there's definitely room enough for both, but the speed of things is mind-boggling. Best regards--LRA From: Isaac Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:22:29 -0400 Tony Sleep wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:15:00 -0700 Karl Schulmeisters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Respectfully, many pros are switching to digital. For newspaper use it's standard now. But I was recently speaking to an AP photographer who was grumbling that he has to try and shoot everything twice now - on dig for the wire, and film for the magazine market which AP are now trying to muscle in on. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons Check out http://www.dpreview.com/news/0106/01062301d1xtwopagespread.asp for the story of a two page spread in Sports Illustrated shot on a Nikon D1x. If this looks decent (I haven't seen the mag yet), it could be the end for film in weekly magazines... Isaac _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Lynn wrote: Todd wrote: A friend of mine got a Kodak DCS420 (one of the $30,000 pro systems you're talking about) for under $1,000 on eBay. Now *that's* an interesting proposition. Does anyone know the particular specs? (I don't--that 30k was so far out of my price range I never bothered to follow up). Where would one do a look-up? It's fairly low-res (a little over 1MPixel I think). The other problem is that because the CCD doesn't cover an entire 35mm film frame, they mask off everything but a center rectangle. I played with my buddy's DCS and I wasn't impressed at all. If you want the full specs, try going to kodak.com and searching for DCS420. I'm sure you will turn up something. I'd like to get my hands on one of the new D1 models to play with. I might consider going digital if it's as good as people are saying. I have two digicams of my own, but because they're both consumer grade, hence point-and-shoot, they feel like toys to me. Even though they both have full manual overrides on the controls, and one has Tv and Av-priority, it still feels like a little toy. It just don't feel like a real camera to me unless it's at least an SLR. :-) -- Todd -- Todd Radel - [EMAIL PROTECTED] SCHWAG.ORG - Where Freaks and Geeks Come Together http://www.schwag.org/ PGP key available at http://www.schwag.org/~thr/pgpkey.txt
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Lynn Allen wrote: Derek wrote: If the camera is good enough for the application, then they not only get the pictures much more quickly, but they save a lot on film and processing. Absolutely, and I think I've mentioned that before (to a hail of bullets from dedicated film-users! ;-)). Also, Digital can give you an instant replay of what you've been doing, like a Polaroid back only faster. Anyone who has been near a TV in the last month or two, at least in North America, has seen the Kodak camera ads which incorporate a digital image recorder AND normal 35mm or APS film. The system allows you to review the last image (at least) taken by the camera (on film), and if it didn't work, you can shoot again. This, to me is very innovative and smart use of technology, and not too costly either. You don't need a lot of memory, as it probably only records the last shot taken. The idea is not to keep the digital image, so it probably is not in high res either. It does require a color LCD panel, but those small ones much cost a few bucks these days. I wish my SLR had a device like that I could add to it, and if it were set up to mimic the basic characteristics of neg and or slide film, it would even reduce some of the need for bracketing. Art
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:11:11 -0400 (EDT) Walter Bushell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Heraclites already proved you cannot photograph the same river twice. Well, this AP guy was definitely having problems with football games :) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 17:05:10 -0700 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: other than Afga slides which used some weird process (CF??) which has failed completely on me Coo. I have a very few slides I shot on Agfa CT18 when I was a kid, c.1964. Despite negligent storage, the colours are still saturated and neutral. I found a colour neg of my dad's on unmasked Agfacolor col.neg, from 1958, and had it printed recently. Excellent, especially skin tones. Grass was a little yellowish, but that's all. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Who ever said that spell check is smart? And I thought it was smarter than I am. Well maybe it is. Anyway, it's a picture of the ... and I should learn how to proff read better. Funny thing is that I missed it after it came in also and that's where I pick up most of my missteaks. Larry Larry Berman wrote: There is a double page picture, shot with it from a helicopter, in the latest Sports Illustrated. I purchased the magazine today and it really looks suburb. ^^ Larry OH, I see, its one of those cameras that make the whole world look like a suburb... I prefer cameras that don't try to make everything look middle class myself! ;-) Art *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com http://IRDreams.com http://ImageCompress.com ***
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
If the camera is good enough for the application, then they not only get the pictures much more quickly, but they save a lot on film and processing. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lynn Allen) wrote: OK, but the important question is What is a D1x? How expensive, compared to a good SLR? Film is a long way from dead (as Kodak has found out, probably to their great relief--or maybe not, considering how much they invested into the technology), but digital is catching up fast. IMHO, there's definitely room enough for both, but the speed of things is mind-boggling. Best regards--LRA From: Isaac Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:22:29 -0400 Tony Sleep wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:15:00 -0700 Karl Schulmeisters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Respectfully, many pros are switching to digital. For newspaper use it's standard now. But I was recently speaking to an AP photographer who was grumbling that he has to try and shoot everything twice now - on dig for the wire, and film for the magazine market which AP are now trying to muscle in on. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons Check out http://www.dpreview.com/news/0106/01062301d1xtwopagespread.asp for the story of a two page spread in Sports Illustrated shot on a Nikon D1x. If this looks decent (I haven't seen the mag yet), it could be the end for film in weekly magazines... Isaac _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
I forget which is the case; but Kodachromes only had either longevity with respect to dark storage or longevity with respect to lightfastness as compared to E-6 but not both. While the Kodachrome process is entirely different from E-6 which may stabilize the dyes as you say, it is always possible that there is an inherent limitation in dyes which restricts stability of one type versus another; whereupon the manufacturer has to make compromises. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Derek Clarke Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 4:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Unfortunately I think you'll find that nothing will last as long as Kodachromes. The completely different process used means that the dyes can be made more stable. And it looks to me that Kodachrome is slowly on the way out. Soon the only game in town for longevity will be digital re-copied to more modern media and possibly converted to a more modern file format every five years or so... [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Arthur Entlich) wrote: Silly me, I used almost exclusively Kodachrome back in the 60's 70's and 80's. I only really moved to E-6 films after they convinced me I could trust them (in the 1990's), (other than Afga slides which used some weird process (CF??) which has failed completely on me, and will need to be dealt with via digital repair (for what is left of the image). Even the Agfa stuff made me nervous enough to go back and reshoot on Kodachrome before I left the area (good intuition that time...) I do have some 40+ year old slides from childhood that are looking pretty ratty and some negs from the 70's and early 80's that need a bit of help, but these are in the minority. I think today's slides and negs (properly processed!!! and stored) will remain very effective images for a long time to come. If they last as well as my 1970's Kodachromes, I'll be overjoyed. Art Isaac Crawford wrote: Hersch Nitikman wrote: For all the concern about the lifetime of CDs, I have been scanning my personal archives of slides and color negatives ranging mostly from the past 30 years, with a few older. I have to say that most of my 30-year old slides and negatives need Digital ROC (Restoration of Color) very badly. Ed Hamrick's independent version in Vuescan has done some remarkable things for me, turning slides that were very much faded to a predominantly magenta image into very much more believable ones. I would not count on slides and negatives to be truly 'archival' unless stored under 'archival' conditions, and maybe not even then. Storing and renewing a digital image on quality media every few years still seems like the best means now available. Hersch This is an interesting idea that doesn't get talked about as much. BW film has far better archival qualities than the color stuff. Many people lump film all into one group when obviously there are differences between films. Maybe digital is the best way to preserve accurate colors... Isaac
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Kodachrome has better dark storage than E-6. E-6 is better for use in slide projectors, but any valuable transparency should be duped for slide projection anyway. Brian Eno (the musician) points out the most relevant issue regarding the digital vs analogue archiving issue. He said something to the effect that analogue degrades gracefully, digital catastrophically. The idea of re-doing a digital archive every so many years isn't practical in my view. What happens to the archive when you get hit by that bus with your name on it? So many valuable artifacts have lain in obscurity for years before discovery. Current digital will likely not survive that, and the purpose of a true archive is survival beyond the life of the creator. Even badly faded analogue artifacts can be restored, if need be. Once digital is dead, it's dead, Fred. Dave - Original Message - From: laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 11:17 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings I forget which is the case; but Kodachromes only had either longevity with respect to dark storage or longevity with respect to lightfastness as compared to E-6 but not both. While the Kodachrome process is entirely different from E-6 which may stabilize the dyes as you say, it is always possible that there is an inherent limitation in dyes which restricts stability of one type versus another; whereupon the manufacturer has to make compromises. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Derek Clarke Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 4:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Unfortunately I think you'll find that nothing will last as long as Kodachromes. The completely different process used means that the dyes can be made more stable. And it looks to me that Kodachrome is slowly on the way out. Soon the only game in town for longevity will be digital re-copied to more modern media and possibly converted to a more modern file format every five years or so... [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Arthur Entlich) wrote: Silly me, I used almost exclusively Kodachrome back in the 60's 70's and 80's. I only really moved to E-6 films after they convinced me I could trust them (in the 1990's), (other than Afga slides which used some weird process (CF??) which has failed completely on me, and will need to be dealt with via digital repair (for what is left of the image). Even the Agfa stuff made me nervous enough to go back and reshoot on Kodachrome before I left the area (good intuition that time...) I do have some 40+ year old slides from childhood that are looking pretty ratty and some negs from the 70's and early 80's that need a bit of help, but these are in the minority. I think today's slides and negs (properly processed!!! and stored) will remain very effective images for a long time to come. If they last as well as my 1970's Kodachromes, I'll be overjoyed. Art Isaac Crawford wrote: Hersch Nitikman wrote: For all the concern about the lifetime of CDs, I have been scanning my personal archives of slides and color negatives ranging mostly from the past 30 years, with a few older. I have to say that most of my 30-year old slides and negatives need Digital ROC (Restoration of Color) very badly. Ed Hamrick's independent version in Vuescan has done some remarkable things for me, turning slides that were very much faded to a predominantly magenta image into very much more believable ones. I would not count on slides and negatives to be truly 'archival' unless stored under 'archival' conditions, and maybe not even then. Storing and renewing a digital image on quality media every few years still seems like the best means now available. Hersch This is an interesting idea that doesn't get talked about as much. BW film has far better archival qualities than the color stuff. Many people lump film all into one group when obviously there are differences between films. Maybe digital is the best way to preserve accurate colors... Isaac
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
AIUI, emulsions such as C41, E6, and ordinary colour print papers have the dyes synthesised not in a chemical factory, but in situ in the emulsion during processing. 'Colour coupler' molecules in the emulsion and the oxidation product of the colour developer link together to give a long molecule with the desired colour. This is a remarkably clever bit of chemistry. In contrast, in Kodachrome and Cibachrome processes the dye molecules are presynthesised in one piece. In Kodachrome they are diffused into the emulsion during processing, and in Cibachrome, the unwanted dyes are selectively bleached out during processing. It is thus inherently easier in the latter processes to use permanent dyes; the colour chemists have fewer constraints because they don't have to meet the requirements of developer chemistry as well as everything else. Regards, Alan Tyson - Original Message - From: laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 4:17 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings (and other messages)
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
OK, but the important question is What is a D1x? How expensive, compared to a good SLR? Film is a long way from dead (as Kodak has found out, probably to their great relief--or maybe not, considering how much they invested into the technology), but digital is catching up fast. IMHO, there's definitely room enough for both, but the speed of things is mind-boggling. Best regards--LRA From: Isaac Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:22:29 -0400 Tony Sleep wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:15:00 -0700 Karl Schulmeisters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Respectfully, many pros are switching to digital. For newspaper use it's standard now. But I was recently speaking to an AP photographer who was grumbling that he has to try and shoot everything twice now - on dig for the wire, and film for the magazine market which AP are now trying to muscle in on. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons Check out http://www.dpreview.com/news/0106/01062301d1xtwopagespread.asp for the story of a two page spread in Sports Illustrated shot on a Nikon D1x. If this looks decent (I haven't seen the mag yet), it could be the end for film in weekly magazines... Isaac _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Hi Lynn, I'll answer this one. The D1x is the new digital camera from Nikon that replaces the D1. It takes all of Nikon's lenses and is going to retail for about $5300. I think that it's 5.3 megapixel camera. There is a double page picture, shot with it from a helicopter, in the latest Sports Illustrated. I purchased the magazine today and it really looks suburb. http://www.robgalbraith.com/diginews/2001-06/2001_06_22_golf.html Larry OK, but the important question is What is a D1x? How expensive, compared to a good SLR? *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com http://IRDreams.com http://ImageCompress.com ***
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
For all the concern about the lifetime of CDs, I have been scanning my personal archives of slides and color negatives ranging mostly from the past 30 years, with a few older. I have to say that most of my 30-year old slides and negatives need Digital ROC (Restoration of Color) very badly. Ed Hamrick's independent version in Vuescan has done some remarkable things for me, turning slides that were very much faded to a predominantly magenta image into very much more believable ones. I would not count on slides and negatives to be truly 'archival' unless stored under 'archival' conditions, and maybe not even then. Storing and renewing a digital image on quality media every few years still seems like the best means now available. Hersch At 05:33 PM 06/24/2001, you wrote: Of course, you could always make many backup copies since you'd only need one percent as many CDs The problem is that you need to remmember to make a third backup about 3/4 through the MTBF to be able to propogate your data forwards. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 12:36 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings In a message dated 6/24/2001 11:21:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Depends on the work. In some image, grain is desirable. Biggest I've printed is 36x 48 - but I am interested in doing some printing with painted on emulsion. The biggest 4x5 I've seen enlarged with nary a trace of grain was about 80x64 Sure you can do that with a digital back fo a 4x5, but its a scanning back and it costs over $20k... As far as I know, the digital backs for 4x5 cameras do not cover anywhere near the entire 4x5 film plane. Therefore, film is the best choice if size of enlargement is the prime consideration. I agree with your previous post concerning the fact that film will last many, many years, while digital storage of photos is very limited in life. The US Copyright Office at the Library of Congress will not accept the common digital storage methods we use for that very reason. According to their web site, however, they do have a study team looking at the issue. And if technology ever solves the digital storage issue, I'm sure they'll change their policy and begin accepting such submissions. In a related note, I read in one of my electronic trade publications ( E. E. Times) that a company has develop a chip to work with ultraviolet lasers. The article stated that the UV lasers could be used in CD writers to write the data more densely and that such a technology could store on a single CD what it now takes 100 CDs to store. I view that as a mixed blessing (assuming it every becomes a reality). A CD that becomes unreadable after few years would now cause the loss of 100 times as many photos as would be lost of a CD using current technology. Of course, you could always make many backup copies since you'd only need one percent as many CDs. But unless they can speed up the write process, imagine how long it would take to write a CD that holds 100 times the info that our current CDs hold. So, it looks like film will be around for a while longer. It's more permanent than digital, it's easier to archive, it's capable of higher resolution, and you can always scan it if you need digital.
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a related note, I read in one of my electronic trade publications ( E. E. Times) that a company has develop a chip to work with ultraviolet lasers. The article stated that the UV lasers could be used in CD writers to write the data more densely and that such a technology could store on a single CD what it now takes 100 CDs to store. I view that as a mixed blessing (assuming it every becomes a reality). A CD that becomes unreadable after few years would now cause the loss of 100 times as many photos as would be lost of a CD using current technology. Of course, you could always make many backup copies since you'd only need one percent as many CDs. But unless they can speed up the write process, imagine how long it would take to write a CD that holds 100 times the info that our current CDs hold. Every time the density of storage media increases, this issue is (and probably needs to be) revisited. I figure, with each doubling of storage density, there should be a doubling of reliability and permanence, since we are at least doubling our confidence in the product with the amount of material going onto it. I do believe optical is better than magnetic, and if kept relatively safe of optical damage (from UV, intense lighting, etc), if the media is quality, it might even last a few dozen years... However, coming up with multiple formats for the same media almost always creates all sorts of confusion. Art
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:15:00 -0700 Karl Schulmeisters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Respectfully, many pros are switching to digital. For newspaper use it's standard now. But I was recently speaking to an AP photographer who was grumbling that he has to try and shoot everything twice now - on dig for the wire, and film for the magazine market which AP are now trying to muscle in on. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
For the life of me, I fail to understand why Walter Bushell would post a message to the list repeating what Karl and Tony said on the list already without making any further contribution. Did Mr Bushell forget to put in his own comments and response? That would be the only explanation I can think of; or am I missing something. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Walter Bushell Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 9:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Tony Sleep wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:15:00 -0700 Karl Schulmeisters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Respectfully, many pros are switching to digital. For newspaper use it's standard now. But I was recently speaking to an AP photographer who was grumbling that he has to try and shoot everything twice now - on dig for the wire, and film for the magazine market which AP are now trying to muscle in on. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons Heraclites already proved you cannot photograph the same river twice.
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Hersch Nitikman wrote: For all the concern about the lifetime of CDs, I have been scanning my personal archives of slides and color negatives ranging mostly from the past 30 years, with a few older. I have to say that most of my 30-year old slides and negatives need Digital ROC (Restoration of Color) very badly. Ed Hamrick's independent version in Vuescan has done some remarkable things for me, turning slides that were very much faded to a predominantly magenta image into very much more believable ones. I would not count on slides and negatives to be truly 'archival' unless stored under 'archival' conditions, and maybe not even then. Storing and renewing a digital image on quality media every few years still seems like the best means now available. Hersch This is an interesting idea that doesn't get talked about as much. BW film has far better archival qualities than the color stuff. Many people lump film all into one group when obviously there are differences between films. Maybe digital is the best way to preserve accurate colors... Isaac
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Tony Sleep wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:15:00 -0700 Karl Schulmeisters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Respectfully, many pros are switching to digital. For newspaper use it's standard now. But I was recently speaking to an AP photographer who was grumbling that he has to try and shoot everything twice now - on dig for the wire, and film for the magazine market which AP are now trying to muscle in on. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons Check out http://www.dpreview.com/news/0106/01062301d1xtwopagespread.asp for the story of a two page spread in Sports Illustrated shot on a Nikon D1x. If this looks decent (I haven't seen the mag yet), it could be the end for film in weekly magazines... Isaac
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Walter Bushell) wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Tony Sleep wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:15:00 -0700 Karl Schulmeisters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Respectfully, many pros are switching to digital. For newspaper use it's standard now. But I was recently speaking to an AP photographer who was grumbling that he has to try and shoot everything twice now - on dig for the wire, and film for the magazine market which AP are now trying to muscle in on. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons Heraclites already proved you cannot photograph the same river twice. I have this image of some poor AP sports guy having to hold a Heath Robinson bracket with a D30, EOS1v and two 300mm f/2.8s...
RE: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Look at the end... One liners can make serious points, and his was that double-shooting can make you miss the action. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (laurie) wrote: For the life of me, I fail to understand why Walter Bushell would post a message to the list repeating what Karl and Tony said on the list already without making any further contribution. Did Mr Bushell forget to put in his own comments and response? That would be the only explanation I can think of; or am I missing something. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Walter Bushell Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 9:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Tony Sleep wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:15:00 -0700 Karl Schulmeisters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Respectfully, many pros are switching to digital. For newspaper use it's standard now. But I was recently speaking to an AP photographer who was grumbling that he has to try and shoot everything twice now - on dig for the wire, and film for the magazine market which AP are now trying to muscle in on. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons Heraclites already proved you cannot photograph the same river twice.
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Silly me, I used almost exclusively Kodachrome back in the 60's 70's and 80's. I only really moved to E-6 films after they convinced me I could trust them (in the 1990's), (other than Afga slides which used some weird process (CF??) which has failed completely on me, and will need to be dealt with via digital repair (for what is left of the image). Even the Agfa stuff made me nervous enough to go back and reshoot on Kodachrome before I left the area (good intuition that time...) I do have some 40+ year old slides from childhood that are looking pretty ratty and some negs from the 70's and early 80's that need a bit of help, but these are in the minority. I think today's slides and negs (properly processed!!! and stored) will remain very effective images for a long time to come. If they last as well as my 1970's Kodachromes, I'll be overjoyed. Art Isaac Crawford wrote: Hersch Nitikman wrote: For all the concern about the lifetime of CDs, I have been scanning my personal archives of slides and color negatives ranging mostly from the past 30 years, with a few older. I have to say that most of my 30-year old slides and negatives need Digital ROC (Restoration of Color) very badly. Ed Hamrick's independent version in Vuescan has done some remarkable things for me, turning slides that were very much faded to a predominantly magenta image into very much more believable ones. I would not count on slides and negatives to be truly 'archival' unless stored under 'archival' conditions, and maybe not even then. Storing and renewing a digital image on quality media every few years still seems like the best means now available. Hersch This is an interesting idea that doesn't get talked about as much. BW film has far better archival qualities than the color stuff. Many people lump film all into one group when obviously there are differences between films. Maybe digital is the best way to preserve accurate colors... Isaac
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Respectfully, many pros are switching to digital. Lucas recently was quoted as saying that he can think of no reason to go back to film (having shot with digital HD). Sports Photogs at Sydney 2000 were finding that the Canon D-30 gave them as good a result of freeze-frame action as Provia and Velvia - but without the sometimes nagging pinhole bubbles in the emulsion. Basically if you can afford the high end resolution cameras, you are close to being able to replace film. And shooting on film really doesn't give you more ways to make money on your work. A lot (if not most) film these days gets telecine'd so that it can be rebroadcast via HD, digital Cable, DBS or DVD. Shooting straight to digital removes this expensive step. That said, I'm still all in film - because I like enlarging past the point that the D-30 image holds up, and I can't afford a scanning back for my 4x5 - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 12:29 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings In a message dated 6/22/2001 3:09:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just wondering, if "glamour" a code word porn these days...No :-)) My reason for asking this actually had a purpose, beyond the humorous. Getting quality color processing for certain type of images can prove problematic in certain parts of the world. I'd think (why would I know? ;-)) that this is an area where digital proves quite, shall we say, "convenient", as the "instant" films used to be. The porn industry is a legitimate business and I wouldn't think there'd be a problem finding a lab that would process film for it. As I've said before, shooting on film gives you more ways to make money from your work, so a pro would not typically shoot with a digital camera. I suspect that most porn shot in digital format is done with video cameras by husbands and wives for their own personal consumption. Pros would want to shoot film, if it'd make more money for them. Well, I guess I get to tie the knot in this thread. We're off topic and I don't want to cause Tony any more grief than he already has with other issues. And I certainly don't want him to banish me to wherever he banished "Dickey!" Cheers, Roger
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
That said, I'm still all in film - because I like enlarging past the point that the D-30 image holds up What is that point (print size) for your work? -- Bob Shomler http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Depends on the work. In some image, grain is desirable. Biggest I've printed is 36x 48 - but I am interested in doing some printing with painted on emulsion. The biggest 4x5 I've seen enlarged with nary a trace of grain was about 80x64 Sure you can do that with a digital back fo a 4x5, but its a scanning back and it costs over $20k... - Original Message - From: Bob Shomler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 9:48 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings That said, I'm still all in film - because I like enlarging past the point that the D-30 image holds up What is that point (print size) for your work? -- Bob Shomler http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
In a message dated 6/24/2001 11:21:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Depends on the work. In some image, grain is desirable. Biggest I've printed is 36"x 48" - but I am interested in doing some printing with painted on emulsion. The biggest 4x5 I've seen enlarged with nary a trace of grain was about 80"x64" Sure you can do that with a digital back fo a 4x5, but its a scanning back and it costs over $20k... As far as I know, the digital backs for 4x5 cameras do not cover anywhere near the entire 4x5 film plane. Therefore, film is the best choice if size of enlargement is the prime consideration. I agree with your previous post concerning the fact that film will last many, many years, while digital storage of photos is very limited in life. The US Copyright Office at the Library of Congress will not accept the common digital storage methods we use for that very reason. According to their web site, however, they do have a study team looking at the issue. And if technology ever solves the digital storage issue, I'm sure they'll change their policy and begin accepting such submissions. In a related note, I read in one of my electronic trade publications ( E. E. Times) that a company has develop a chip to work with ultraviolet lasers. The article stated that the UV lasers could be used in CD writers to write the data more densely and that such a technology could store on a single CD what it now takes 100 CDs to store. I view that as a mixed blessing (assuming it every becomes a reality). A CD that becomes unreadable after few years would now cause the loss of 100 times as many photos as would be lost of a CD using current technology. Of course, you could always make many backup copies since you'd only need one percent as many CDs. But unless they can speed up the write process, imagine how long it would take to write a CD that holds 100 times the info that our current CDs hold. So, it looks like film will be around for a while longer. It's more permanent than digital, it's easier to archive, it's capable of higher resolution, and you can always scan it if you need digital.
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Of course, you could always make many backup copies since you'd only need one percent as many CDs The problem is that you need to remmember to make a third backup about 3/4 through the MTBF to be able to propogate your data forwards. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 12:36 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings In a message dated 6/24/2001 11:21:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Depends on the work. In some image, grain is desirable. Biggest I've printed is 36"x 48" - but I am interested in doing some printing with painted on emulsion. The biggest 4x5 I've seen enlarged with nary a trace of grain was about 80"x64" Sure you can do that with a digital back fo a 4x5, but its a scanning back and it costs over $20k... As far as I know, the digital backs for 4x5 cameras do not cover anywhere near the entire 4x5 film plane. Therefore, film is the best choice if size of enlargement is the prime consideration. I agree with your previous post concerning the fact that film will last many, many years, while digital storage of photos is very limited in life. The US Copyright Office at the Library of Congress will not accept the common digital storage methods we use for that very reason. According to their web site, however, they do have a study team looking at the issue. And if technology ever solves the digital storage issue, I'm sure they'll change their policy and begin accepting such submissions. In a related note, I read in one of my electronic trade publications ( E. E. Times) that a company has develop a chip to work with ultraviolet lasers. The article stated that the UV lasers could be used in CD writers to write the data more densely and that such a technology could store on a single CD what it now takes 100 CDs to store. I view that as a mixed blessing (assuming it every becomes a reality). A CD that becomes unreadable after few years would now cause the loss of 100 times as many photos as would be lost of a CD using current technology. Of course, you could always make many backup copies since you'd only need one percent as many CDs. But unless they can speed up the write process, imagine how long it would take to write a CD that holds 100 times the info that our current CDs hold. So, it looks like film will be around for a while longer. It's more permanent than digital, it's easier to archive, it's capable of higher resolution, and you can always scan it if you need digital.
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
At 15:25 21/06/01 -0700, you wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:49 21/06/01 -0400, you wrote: i Roger -thanks for taking the time to reply-you've given me something to think about . basically my reason for buying a digital camera was to use it as well as my other cameras depending on what the intended market was ( yes I know I said I was changing my cameras for a digital :-)) ) . Most of my work is or will be for websites so my thinking was that digital would be quicker-no processing or scanning. At present I use neg film,get it processed then scan using Vuescan and the results are good. I't's just the time it takes. After what you said maybe I'll just stick to what I've got-trouble is i dont know if there is any way I can get to use a digital camera-see what the results are like and decide from there -if I was buying a car I could take it for a test drive but maybe I could hire a camera for a few days . regards Stuart Just wondering, if glamour a code word porn these days... No :-)) I have seen output from digital cameras used for quick model portfolio work, and it looks very reasonable. If you are making work for the web, I doubt that whatever defects digital manifests would be very meaningful. At the end of the day, the web is a digital media, and so most of the translation removes the majority of film qualities anyway. (I am speaking here about higher end digital cameras 2-4 megapixel with good lens and exposure option). Heck, not to over due the old saw, but... we're speaking of jpegs at 72-120 dpi, aren't we? Yes Stuart Art
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just wondering, if glamour a code word porn these days... No :-)) My reason for asking this actually had a purpose, beyond the humorous. Getting quality color processing for certain type of images can prove problematic in certain parts of the world. I'd think (why would I know? ;-)) that this is an area where digital proves quite, shall we say, convenient, as the instant films used to be. I have seen output from digital cameras used for quick model portfolio work, and it looks very reasonable. If you are making work for the web, I doubt that whatever defects digital manifests would be very meaningful. At the end of the day, the web is a digital media, and so most of the translation removes the majority of film qualities anyway. (I am speaking here about higher end digital cameras 2-4 megapixel with good lens and exposure option). Heck, not to over due the old saw, but... we're speaking of jpegs at 72-120 dpi, aren't we? If these images will never require reproduction in another form, such as printed hard (now I'm speaking glamour!, not as above, so no snickering) copy, then the digital will do well. However, if you might be eventually selling images in other formats, or have clients who require other formats, unless you are using fairly expensive 'state of the art' cameras/backs, you might find you cannot get the quality your clients might require or expect. Art
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
At 13:52 22/06/01 -0700, you wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just wondering, if glamour a code word porn these days... No :-)) My reason for asking this actually had a purpose, beyond the humorous. Getting quality color processing for certain type of images can prove problematic in certain parts of the world. I'd think (why would I know? ;-)) that this is an area where digital proves quite, shall we say, convenient, as the instant films used to be. Art- I live in Scotland which is hardly the most liberated of countries -believe me -and it is relatively easy to get film processed but I appreciate what you say about digital avoiding any potential problems in this area. I have seen output from digital cameras used for quick model portfolio work, and it looks very reasonable. If you are making work for the web, I doubt that whatever defects digital manifests would be very meaningful. At the end of the day, the web is a digital media, and so most of the translation removes the majority of film qualities anyway. (I am speaking here about higher end digital cameras 2-4 megapixel with good lens and exposure option). Heck, not to over due the old saw, but... we're speaking of jpegs at 72-120 dpi, aren't we? If these images will never require reproduction in another form, such as printed hard (now I'm speaking glamour!, not as above, so no snickering) copy, then the digital will do well. However, if you might be eventually selling images in other formats, or have clients who require other formats, unless you are using fairly expensive 'state of the art' cameras/backs, you might find you cannot get the quality your clients might require or expect. I would be supplying websites so I probably wouldnt need to produce prints etc . I would know before the shoot if the output was intended for ,say magazines, so would shoot transparencies ,if that was the case Stuart Art
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Check out http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/camerasIndex.jh tml Then look at the article about Michael Grecco using the DCS Pro Back on a glamour shoot. You may want to check out the recent updates in the world of digital photography before you make such a sweeping statement. So, are you planning on using a digital camera for your glamour photography? Ouch! I can't see how you'd be happy with the results compared to what wet processing in a commercial lab can do for you. Resolution is lousy and you can't get the look and feel from it that wet film and paper will give. Polaroid film is awful stuff for proofing (sorry Mr. Hemingway), so digital should be able to compete with it very well. Well we've been using it for years with no problems at all. What do you find so awfull about it ? Kevin
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
At 03:49 21/06/01 -0400, you wrote: i Roger -thanks for taking the time to reply-you've given me something to think about . basically my reason for buying a digital camera was to use it as well as my other cameras depending on what the intended market was ( yes I know I said I was changing my cameras for a digital :-)) ) . Most of my work is or will be for websites so my thinking was that digital would be quicker-no processing or scanning. At present I use neg film,get it processed then scan using Vuescan and the results are good. I't's just the time it takes. After what you said maybe I'll just stick to what I've got-trouble is i dont know if there is any way I can get to use a digital camera-see what the results are like and decide from there -if I was buying a car I could take it for a test drive but maybe I could hire a camera for a few days . regards Stuart So, are you planning on using a digital camera for your glamour photography? Ouch! I can't see how you'd be happy with the results compared to what wet processing in a commercial lab can do for you. Resolution is lousy and you can't get the look and feel from it that wet film and paper will give. That's very important when shooting people because everyone knows what good skin tone looks like and, in my opinion, no digital process (even via filmscanning) can match the quality and appeal of wet chemistry slides or prints, especially with skin tones. (Others may disagree with me, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.) Digital has its place if you need speed (news photographers) or want to do compositing in Photoshop, and filmscanning is far superior to a digital camera if you can afford the extra step, but digital in any form ought to be the choice of last resort, in my opinion. If, on the other hand, you want to use a digital camera for proofing instead of Polaroid film, then you may be on to something. Polaroid film is awful stuff for proofing (sorry Mr. Hemingway), so digital should be able to compete with it very well. So far as using your infrared strobe with the Nikon camera, if the camera has a hot shoe or a PC connector (depending on what your IR strobe uses), then you should be able to use the IR strobe on the camera with no problem. Hot shoes used to have a single contact right in the center, and the newer hot shoes for dedicated strobes simply added some extra contacts around that center contract. So any old non-dedicated strobe should still work since it uses only the center contact, but it would operate without some of the automatic features of the dedicated strobes. That assumes that the voltage on the contacts of the non-dedicated strobe don't exceed the rating of the camera. And that's an issue since a lot of newer cameras can't handle more that 12 volts or so and most older strobes, and most current studio strobes, place over 100 volts on the strobe contacts. So, if you fry some electronics because of what I told you, remember that I told you not to use a digital camera in the first place! In a message dated 6/20/2001 10:01:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am presently considering the purchase of a digital camera . I do some glamour stuff and use studio lghts utiliising an infr-red trigger . i had been looking st a Nikon Coolpix 995 brochure and it only mentions the use of a Speedlight ,both built in and separate . What I was wondering is if anyone has one of these cameras or its predecessor and knows if normal external flash units can be used . I appreciate nikon trying to promote its own products but If only Speedlights can be used then it looks like Nikon are going to lose a sale . regards Stuart
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:49 21/06/01 -0400, you wrote: i Roger -thanks for taking the time to reply-you've given me something to think about . basically my reason for buying a digital camera was to use it as well as my other cameras depending on what the intended market was ( yes I know I said I was changing my cameras for a digital :-)) ) . Most of my work is or will be for websites so my thinking was that digital would be quicker-no processing or scanning. At present I use neg film,get it processed then scan using Vuescan and the results are good. I't's just the time it takes. After what you said maybe I'll just stick to what I've got-trouble is i dont know if there is any way I can get to use a digital camera-see what the results are like and decide from there -if I was buying a car I could take it for a test drive but maybe I could hire a camera for a few days . regards Stuart Just wondering, if glamour a code word porn these days... I have seen output from digital cameras used for quick model portfolio work, and it looks very reasonable. If you are making work for the web, I doubt that whatever defects digital manifests would be very meaningful. At the end of the day, the web is a digital media, and so most of the translation removes the majority of film qualities anyway. (I am speaking here about higher end digital cameras 2-4 megapixel with good lens and exposure option). Heck, not to over due the old saw, but... we're speaking of jpegs at 72-120 dpi, aren't we? Art
