When you have finished testing, you might actually want to go out and take some pictures, post them here, and explain to us how much better they are because of all that testing. Or is it just testing for the sake of testing?
Last edited:
Hi guys,
Let's relax a bit and see what I'm testing right now:
I'm messing with an ancient Heliar 30cm that came with the Globus K a week ago.
I'm trying a DIY conversion to emulate the Universal Heliar, the Universal displaces the inner element to provocate diffusion for portraiture. I try to learn what happens is shut shimming the front group...
Nicer than scanners !!!!!!
Frank, we debating to see what scanning resources are necessary to scan decently, so we need to understand what the practical limits of film to see what scanning performane we may require depending on the situation.
So right now the thing is not about being better or worse photographers, but about learning about the hybrid workflow as its a particular means to craft images from film. This is also a practical concern of interest, but not art.
I might want to mention here that you won't have any of these scanner issues if you don't use a scanner. Sometimes that thought gets lost in all the minutia. If you shoot film, make your own gelatin silver or chromogenic prints. If you don't have the space or ability to do that, and the only option is making digital prints, shoot with a digital camera. I don't know why anyone would want to make the technical quality of their images worse by including a scanner in the pipeline.
you might actually want to go out and take some pictures, post them here, and explain to us how much better they are because of all that testing.
How many people are you ? or is it Royal We ? (joking, please take it with humor)
I appreciate your recommendation of shooting digital in BW, many carbon printers do that, but presonally I feel this lacks some romantic "authenticity" for me, a bit I'd I like to follow the way Jim and Vaughn are crafting the images, this is the path I'm following as I can. Of course every one has to follow what he likes, to me your workflow is as good as any other.
Any ""romantic "authenticity"" is negated by scanning film to digital.
Here YMMV. Hybrid may cancel a share of that romanticism, or not. This is a personal feeling.
In any case we have examples of some famous Pro wedding photographers shooting film and scanning:
Well DXO doesn't seem to think much of the DX 35mm 1.8 either on a DX body. 10 MP is pretty poor for prime on a 24 MP body. Something is awry.14MPix is with an APSC small sensor camera, with a Full Format D850 the 35mm f/1.4G is rated 25MPix, both are totally fair values for the situation IMO. Think that the 35 is a FF lens, optimized for a format that has x2 the area.
View attachment 253883
Those rated 8 MPix effective of the 18-55VR in the D5500 are totally fair, but to get that you have to shot f/5.6 or f/8 and under 28mm to get that, see the performance map:
View attachment 253882
The EXIF of the Melbourne shot says 18mm focal and wide open f/3.5, the focal in good for performance but the apperture is not totally optimal, still not bad. That shot should be slightly under 8MPix effective, but not beyond 8...
This enforces that 2600dpi effective rating,isn't it?
I hope this is not to be irritating also for you...Joking, take it with some humor.
Some get irritated when truth is evidenced... I hope it's not your case.
How about they (the film makers) just appreciate the characteristics of film?The "us" in my post refers to the participants in the thread. Any ""romantic "authenticity"" is negated by scanning film to digital.
Scanners needn't be bad.I might want to mention here that you won't have any of these scanner issues if you don't use a scanner. Sometimes that thought gets lost in all the minutia. If you shoot film, make your own gelatin silver or chromogenic prints. If you don't have the space or ability to do that, and the only option is making digital prints, shoot with a digital camera. I don't know why anyone would want to make the technical quality of their images worse by including a scanner in the pipeline.
Well to start with... you responded to my statement.
I received comments from three people, two of them in private messages, and one public-- So I responded publicly to that person.
The only emotion in my case is irritation that as expected, a useful thread has disintegrated under the weight of egos. And that probably includes me. Part of my irritation is based on the fact that I've seen this particular flame-fest before, and it was considerably nastier then.
It may surprise you that one of your comments was phrased in such a way that I had to restrain myself from expressing my opinion of you, and your probable ancestry-- but that wouldn't have been civil (or useful).
Telling other people how you think their mind works, as a rule, says more about you than it does them, and in some cultures, will offend. As it's very easy to be misunderstood in text, especially when crossing cultural and linguistic barriers, I've developed a habit of erring on the side of caution, and try not to treat others in a way I would object to being on the receiving end of.
How about they (the film makers) just appreciate the characteristics of film?
..... shoot with a digital camera. I don't know why anyone would want to make the technical quality of their images worse by including a scanner in the pipeline.
Eggzacatally. You do the best with the gear (and film) that is available at the moment. Was true in St. Ansel's day and is still true today. For best results, spend the extra money for top quality equipment, be it film or lenses or DSLR bodies or even scanners!!How is any of this helpful to a photographer?
cut and paste from 2018 lazy, lazy, lazyHere YMMV. Hybrid may cancel a share of that romanticism, or not. This is a personal feeling.
In any case we have examples of some famous Pro wedding photographers shooting film and scanning:
View attachment 253896
cut and paste from 2018 lazy, lazy, lazy
https://www.largeformatphotography....ernity-photography-using-Chamonix-45N-2/page3
cut and paste from 2018 lazy, lazy, lazy
https://www.largeformatphotography....ernity-photography-using-Chamonix-45N-2/page3
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?