Digital like analog

[faberryman]

Even half frame slide on a little Patterson slide viewer, upgraded (in luminosity) with a LED bulb is far superior to how photos look on an iPhone screen.

Is that how you share your photographs with others? With a Paterson slide viewer? Upgraded with an LED bulb?

People, including many here, don’t realize how much scanning, including good DSLR scanning, misrepresents film photos.

Which is why I advocate that people who prefer film make their own gelatin silver and chromogenic prints.

 

[faberryman]

...and shooting Medium Format color slide and projecting as a 6' image on a screen is so very much more impressive than looking at even a digital image with 4k digital projector...the affordable digital projector cannot even recreate what the digital camera captured with its sensor!!!
(You have to spend tens of thousands to get 8k projection...the cheapest Panasonic or JVC 8k is $11k)

I have seen a few film slide shows in photo galleries over the years and they uniformly sucked. Has a photographer ever sold a fine art slide? And why suggest projecting digital photographs rather than showing them on a monitor? What does "affordable" have to do with it anyway? Is this a back door argument that film is cheaper than digital or something?

 

[Helge]

I have seen a few film slide shows in photo galleries and they sucked. And why project digital photographs rather than show them on a monitor?

What exactly sucked about them? Most likely it was not under optimal circumstances and not with optimal setup equipment.
You need it dark to get relative contrast up.
And you need to have every slide refocused (a remote comes in real handy there).

 

[Cholentpot]

Even half frame slide on a little Patterson slide viewer, upgraded (in luminosity) with a LED bulb is far superior to how photos look on an iPhone screen.

People, including many here, don’t realize how much scanning, including good DSLR scanning, misrepresents film photos.

Hasn't film been digitally scanned one way or another since the late 90's? I don't think the drug stores were doing optical prints anymore in 1998.

I dunno, I'd like to think that my DSLR work flow does an honest representation of my film.

I'd say to me these shots are undoubtedly film, even if scanned with a DSLR

And this one is a digital shot using a Jupiter-9 lens that's almost twice my age.

And this is a digital shot using a modern camera and modern lens (Canon DSLR, EF lens)

 

[faberryman]

What exactly sucked about them? Most likely it was not under optimal circumstances and not with optimal setup equipment.
You need it dark to get relative contrast up. And you need to have every slide refocused (a remote comes in real handy there).

That's sort of the problem with slides, isn't it? Viewing in non-optimum conditions. Why would an artist want his photographs to be shown as a slide show in a photo gallery? Like I asked before, has a photographer ever sold a fine art slide? Is a print on the wall a bourgeois concept?

 

[wiltw]

I have seen a few film slide shows in photo galleries over the years and they uniformly sucked. Has a photographer ever sold a fine art slide? And why suggest projecting digital photographs rather than showing them on a monitor? What does "affordable" have to do with it anyway? Is this a back door argument that film is cheaper than digital or something?

You obviously have not experienced seeing medium format slides projected in their glory vs. 135 format slides...even veteran film photographers gasp at the impact of the MF slide projected.

We have digital cameras capable of 30 Mpixels, and yet

• an affordable 4k digital projector only shows off 3840 x 2160 or 8.3 MPixels of them, 0r 27% of the photo's resolution...same for a monitor!
• And it takes a $11000 8K projector or $4000 7,680 x 4,320 31" monitor to show what the camera has captured!

Why bother doing anything other than printing digital images at 300dpi to get 22" wide photos, where the eye can actually perceive the detail and tonality of the shot, since most monitor are so inadequate to show off what the photo contains?!

 

[Helge]

Hasn't film been digitally scanned one way or another since the late 90's? I don't think the drug stores were doing optical prints anymore in 1998.

I dunno, I'd like to think that my DSLR work flow does an honest representation of my film.

I'd say to me these shots are undoubtedly film, even if scanned with a DSLR

And this one is a digital shot using a Jupiter-9 lens that's almost twice my age.

And this is a digital shot using a modern camera and modern lens (Canon DSLR, EF lens)

I’m far from “anti-scan”.
Scanning certainly has it’s place and can do things that are difficult, but not impossible with a darkroom print.

The problem is when it replaces real printing and the darkroom wet B&W and RA4 print becomes something very distant or even unknown to the average film photographer.

The problem is not really DSLR scanning though.
It’s all the people who only know film through shitty lab scans and flatbed, at best Plustek/Opticfilm scanners.

The film market desperately, desperately needs a good, small and affordable scanner, now!
Not in three or five years when momentum finally has caught up, too late.
But now, before the average film newcomer gets disillusioned and tired of what she/he soon will come to see as an expensive gimmick and fad.
Overpriced holders, cobbled together copystands, light table and macro DSLRS are never going to be the fast, easy and hobby priced solution that the market wants so much.
One of the most often asked questions on various groups is “what scanner?”. And the answer often is wishy washy and half-hearted recommendations.

Such a scanner would be very easy to throw together, by even a small electronics manufacturer with the last ten years development in good quality, mass produced mobile phone components.
An Imacon quality scanner for about 500 - $1000 would absolutely be possible with a little clever engineering.

 

[Helge]

That's sort of the problem with slides, isn't it? Viewing in non-optimum conditions. Why would an artist want his photographs to be shown as a slide show in a photo gallery? Like I asked before, has a photographer ever sold a fine art slide? Is a print on the wall a bourgeois concept?

Prints from fine art slides has been sold of course.
And gallery/museum shows with specially made very tough, hard wearing slides has been made (with a stack of replacements waiting in the wings) .
But as an original and finite lamp hour capable projection medium, slide in the original form is naturally only meant for personal enjoyment and consumption within the home by a small select group.
Nothing wrong with that.

Even 135 slide, including half frame, provides a completely unique image quality that almost feels like cheating to most people who see it for the first time, because it’s obviously a “real object being projected there” instead of an ephemeral screen image.
The resolution, the stability and the tonality is just exceptional.
You need, as with anything analog, good technique.
A good “modern” projector or a smaller projection with an old, is paramount to getting the luminosity people are used to today.
But even a smaller projection is larger than you are likely to ever print.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

That's sort of the problem with slides, isn't it? Viewing in non-optimum conditions. Why would an artist want his photographs to be shown as a slide show in a photo gallery? Like I asked before, has a photographer ever sold a fine art slide? Is a print on the wall a bourgeois concept?

They're two completely different beasts, requiring two completely different approaches to viewing each - one is an installation in a well-lit room (premises that tend to make me feel uncomfortable), other is a preferably live performance in the intimate dark - two completely different settings, moods and experiences.

Both forms are valid and each have their own unique properties made up of strength's and weaknesses, but the later is just used less. Could it be because it requires more from the viewer? Sitting still, focusing all attention towards the screen just not to miss a picture, relying on the pacing of somebody/what else.... Could it be because a slideshow is an utterly intimate experience? Raw shot followed by a raw shot, flaws open to see in real time - not masked by traditional or digital processing on a fancy pants spotted paper. And the idiot with the remote is right three in person to criticize - hopefully. Otherwise why bother indeed?
You cannot show a photograph on paper in the dark. Knowing this - why shit on slide shows brought to you in glaring, ugly light? Demand better, formulate your opinion only after such an experience. Otherwise it's a plain act of misinformation - based on a subjective experience and bias - not on observations of reality.

The general problem is - people are focusing on comparison, on seeking confirmation of their choices and biases in the process, clinging to their ways - all often done subconsciously.
Doing the unthinkable each and every instance - comparing apples to oranges.

If one tries to compare screen Vs paper, nothing good will ever come out - just like with the utterly pointless digital Vs film "arguments".

Should everything be put Vs everything or should we simply enjoy the unique properties brought to you by each unique format and medium?

 

[faberryman]

a

You cannot show a photograph on paper in the dark. Knowing this - why shit on slide shows brought to you in glaring, ugly light? Demand better, formulate your opinion only after such an experience. Otherwise it's a plain act of misinformation - based on a subjective experience and bias - not on observations of reality.

The slide shows I have seen at photo galleries (and some museums) have been underwhelming. Unfortunately, that is the venue and the viewing conditions under which the artist elected to display his work. Had the artist elected a better venue and better viewing conditions under which to display his work, I am sure I would have had a better experience. He didn't. That is the reality. Maybe things will change. The impetus for change will need to come from the artists who want to display their work as projected slides. Maybe where you live artists who want to display their work as projected slides have already addressed the issue and have venues where the public can view their work under optimal viewing conditions, and the rest of the world needs to catch up. And then we have the separate issue of what the collector is actually going to buy and how he is going to display it.

All of this discussion has nothing to do with whether film is better than digital, and, in particular, whether medium format slides look better than full frame digital images projected with an "affordable" digital projector. I have no idea why anyone wants to argue about that.

 

[Helge]

A slide show shouldn’t really be people sitting down in a show and tell fashion, with a stiff presenter using five minutes per slide on inane, needless description of the photo.

What I have success with is, one on one “shows” where we just jump around and have a look at whatever and linger however long we will.
Or if I want to display a whole carousel, I just let it run on auto with a very short timer in a loop while people are free to talk and drink and whatever. Then you can hold or freeze a frame if people want.

 

[Cholentpot]

I’m far from “anti-scan”.
Scanning certainly has it’s place and can do things that are difficult, but not impossible with a darkroom print.

The problem is when it replaces real printing and the darkroom wet B&W and RA4 print becomes something very distant or even unknown to the average film photographer.

The problem is not really DSLR scanning though.
It’s all the people who only know film through shitty lab scans and flatbed, at best Plustek/Opticfilm scanners.

The film market desperately, desperately needs a good, small and affordable scanner, now!
Not in three or five years when momentum finally has caught up, too late.
But now, before the average film newcomer gets disillusioned and tired of what she/he soon will come to see as an expensive gimmick and fad.
Overpriced holders, cobbled together copystands, light table and macro DSLRS are never going to be the fast, easy and hobby priced solution that the market wants so much.
One of the most often asked questions on various groups is “what scanner?”. And the answer often is wishy washy and half-hearted recommendations.

Such a scanner would be very easy to throw together, by even a small electronics manufacturer with the last ten years development in good quality, mass produced mobile phone components.
An Imacon quality scanner for about 500 - $1000 would absolutely be possible with a little clever engineering.

I agree but who's going to do it? Kodak should but they won't given the R&D costs. In this day and age a companion digital scanner to film is a must. I'd love to shoot my film, dry it and then feed into a scanner, have the scanner make the basic call of post and leave the rest up to me. I don't truly enjoy scanning. I enjoy taking photos and doing a little after to finish them off.

I enjoy making wet prints in the darkroom but I don't have the space right now. I will at some point but not today. For now digital scanning is all I have.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Or maybe where you live artists who want to display their work as projected slides have already addressed the issue and have venues where the public can view their work under optimal viewing conditions

Purrrhaps. Have displayed my work in fallout shelters, have been to local projection Open Air nights, have projected at such an event in a neighboring country too. There I saw an artist from France, doing wonderfully cinematic work with 2 projectors, manual transitions and so on, creating a spectacle and story of textures alone.

You had drive-in Cinemas to begin with. Is that itch scratched?

 

[faberryman]

You had drive-in Cinemas to begin with. Is that itch scratched?

If you believe the internet, there are 335 drive-in movies still operating in the United States. I haven't been to one in fifty years. My guess is that most of them are using digital projection because that is how movies are being distributed. Of course, you didn't go to a drive-in movie for the quality of the projection, so that is not really an issue.

 

[faberryman]

A slide show shouldn’t really be people sitting down in a show and tell fashion, with a stiff presenter using five minutes per slide on inane, needless description of the photo.

Which is why I haven't gone to a camera club meeting in recent memory. Those are even worse because they are projecting digital images with affordable projectors. And the images aren't all that great to begin with. Then the guy tells everyone he has a BFA so he doesn't need to use a meter.

I gave my last slide show in the late 1980s. I had to get a fleet of ambulances to take the audience members to the hospital because they all fell into comas about twenty minutes in. Somehow I don't think showing medium format slides would have made much difference.

 

[BMbikerider]

There are no digital cameras that can convince me that I am looking at an image shot on film.

I will go along 100% with that

 

[Helge]

I agree but who's going to do it? Kodak should but they won't given the R&D costs. In this day and age a companion digital scanner to film is a must. I'd love to shoot my film, dry it and then feed into a scanner, have the scanner make the basic call of post and leave the rest up to me. I don't truly enjoy scanning. I enjoy taking photos and doing a little after to finish them off.

I enjoy making wet prints in the darkroom but I don't have the space right now. I will at some point but not today. For now digital scanning is all I have.

If you look at the amount of cheap “crap” that is made routinely for far smaller markets and customers bases, involving pretty high tech stuff like camera modules, controlled LEDs and custom software, a scanner involving those technologies should be very straight forward to make.

Twenty year old consumer dreck, like the family of scanners the Kodak Scanza is a member of, where the aim was just to get uncle mcUncles old funky slides “onto the computer”, and 2 MP was deemed more than enough for that old stuff, is actually not that far of in fundamental construction from what one might imagine for a 135 and 120 scanner.
Only you could have a vastly better, non Bayer sensor, RGB backlight and better optics.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

If you believe the internet, there are 335 drive-in movies still operating in the United States. I haven't been to one in fifty years. My guess is that most of them are using digital projection because that is how movies are being distributed. Of course, you didn't go to a drive-in movie for the quality of the projection, so that is not really an issue.

Then I guess people would be up for a freestyle projection night, for example.

 

[Helge]

Which is why I haven't gone to a camera club meeting in recent memory. Those are even worse because they are projecting digital images with affordable projectors. And the images aren't all that great to begin with. Then the guy told everyone he had a BFA so he didn't need to use a meter.

I gave my last slide show in the late 1980s. I had to get a fleet of ambulances to take the audience members to the hospital because they all fell into comas about twenty minutes in. Somehow I don't think showing medium format slides would have made much difference.

Of course a good entertaining slide show can be done, but it takes a gigantic effort to edit it and accumulate enough interesting slides in the first place.
Far more than the average photographer is willing to put into it or imagines is necessary.
The best are synced with prerecorded narration and music.

 

[SomewhereLost]

Wow folks. Thank you all so much for the discussion and thoughts. As a guy kinda walking backward into this, it's been super informative. Y'all making me really itch to buy better film cameras when the time comes.

 

[Cholentpot]

I will go along 100% with that

I can be fooled. I have been and I will continue to be. Granted the photographer is very skilled and a master at their craft.

 

[BMbikerider]

I can be fooled. I have been and I will continue to be. Granted the photographer is very skilled and a master at their craft.

Let me elaborate. The reason I should be able to distinguish one from the other is they are different. Different as chalk and cheese. Usually digital colour has a higher saturation, the edges of the subject are usually clearer cut, often unnaturally s. There is usually an absence of grain..B&W is uncommonly smooth compared to 35mm Monochrome film. But the biggest give a way it looks too good to be correct/accurate.

 

[jvo]

hijacked thread?

 

[Cholentpot]

If you look at the amount of cheap “crap” that is made routinely for far smaller markets and customers bases, involving pretty high tech stuff like camera modules, controlled LEDs and custom software, a scanner involving those technologies should be very straight forward to make.

Twenty year old consumer dreck, like the family of scanners the Kodak Scanza is a member of, where the aim was just to get uncle mcUncles old funky slides “onto the computer”, and 2 MP was deemed more than enough for that old stuff, is actually not that far of in fundamental construction from what one might imagine for a 135 and 120 scanner.
Only you could have a vastly better, non Bayer sensor, RGB backlight and better optics.

Most of us shooting film still don't want compromised 2mp awful photos. We're shooting film for a reason. I'd end up sticking with DSLR scanning instead of paying $159.99 for a plastic piece of garbage.

Let me elaborate. The reason I should be able to distinguish one from the other is they are different. Different as chalk and cheese. Usually digital colour has a higher saturation, the edges of the subject are usually clearer cut, often unnaturally s. There is usually an absence of grain..B&W is uncommonly smooth compared to 35mm Monochrome film. But the biggest give a way it looks too good to be correct/accurate.

I don't agree with this. It's all about post processing. I don't doubt I can cook up a shot taken with a fairly modern camera, some vintage lens and some trippy lighting, spend a few minutes in lightroom let alone photoshop and pass off a digital shot for film. Fuji cameras can do this in camera with some excellent emulators. If we can reanimate Luke Skywalker we can surely make a convincing film fake.

 

[Helge]

Most of us shooting film still don't want compromised 2mp awful photos. We're shooting film for a reason. I'd end up sticking with DSLR scanning instead of paying $159.99 for a plastic piece of garbage.

It would of course exactly not be a plastic piece of garbage!
That was just an example of mass production, for which the price of the whole production setup is much the same whether you are designing a throwaway toy, or a more sophisticated device.

Something like the Plustek Opticfilm and Reflecta scanners are locked into fifteen to twenty year old sensor tech and consumer computer peripheral design tropes (which is very apparent in their styling), that makes them inefficient, slow and needlessly expensive for what they are.

A much simpler and much more general scanner could consist of a backlight that could be selectively cycled through RGB with spikes according to the RA4 paper characteristic.
And a upper freely moveable small probe with something like a monochrome 12 MP sensor, optics and a piece of anti newton ring glass as the base (film flatness and focus taken care of in one fell swoop), with a fixed optical FoW of say twelve by twelve centimeter.
The user would just freely place the probe on the film laying on the backlight and take as many overlapping shots as necessary, as quickly as they wanted, without having to wait on motors and gears, that would then be stitched in software.

You could scan any format this way with a resolution of at least 8000 (real) dpi.

Manufacturers feel free to steal.