I'm sorry to hear that. But looking at it on the bright side: if you can still use your hands reasonably well, you should be good. On a more serious note, ailments like arthritis or severe tremor can spoil the broth, making it difficult to spool film onto reels etc.
Format resolution comparison.
-
H
- Thread starter Nikon 2
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Essentially new in box Nikon FM10
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale Hasselblad PM90 Finder
- Started by dankapsner
-
For Sale FS: Fujinon-T 400mm f/8 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold SOLD! Fujinon-W 250mm f/6.7 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Arca-Swiss Oschwald Wide Angle Bellows (171mm square for 4x5 Cameras)
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
OP
OP
Digital seems to be designed for those old enough to retire from analog…!
Hah, that's one way of looking at it! Sure enough, digital can be easy on the wallet, and there are many bobs and bits that make the photographer's life easier.
Whether it has the same overall appeal as film...that's up to you to decide!
Whether it has the same overall appeal as film...that's up to you to decide!
At the very least, it more readily allows you to indulge in studying the individual pixels....
OP
OP
Since you mentioned that, or opened a can or worms, it’s almost impossible to see the full potential of film easily since the complexity one needs to understand and the quality control of labs doing the development is hit or miss, but digital is as easy as SD card to computer, wa la…!
OP
OP
Since I’m focused, pun intended, on landscape photography I prefer all the details a good sensor can give…!
I prefer photos to details and don't see much point assessing the "quality" of an image at any magnification higher than the final print size. If it looks good on a piece of 8x10 paper, it looks good. If I want a photo of a pine needle, I won't take a photo of a tree - let alone of a forest.
OP
OP
I “see”, pun intended…!
OP
OP
Actually my film scans do look amazing while not being as sharp or clinical…!
In a way; both digital and film come with their pitfalls. But digital does away with the chemical part of the process, and scanning of course, and I think that makes it a little easier for some to deal with.
Well, that's a compelling argument for shooting digital.
And that's a compelling argument for shooting film.
Why choose if you can have both!
OP
OP
Finally…!
This is all it matters. We can all obsess with microscopic levels of image quality (and too often we do) but if it looks as it should on target media that's what the requirement is.
Whether that's a print of desired size or big screen TV or large monitor.
Where did he mention which Nikkor lenses he is using?
There's a list in the signature. Unless something unlisted was used.
If you are happy with with the files from your digital camera, but unhapy with the the lab scans of your negatives, consider using your digital camera to copy your negatives. Only if you do it yourself will you have complete control over the digitization process. And a RAW file from your digital camera should be a better starting point than a lab JPG for post processing.
It doesn't display on my mobile browser.
His signature lists:
Nikon F2; Nikkor-28mm f/2.8 AI-s, 35mm O.C. f/2 pre AI, 50mm f/1.4 AI-s, 50mm AI and pre AI f/2 and a 105mm AI f2.5, lens.
Leica M-D 262 with a Zeiss T Planar 50mm f/2 ZM lens.
There isn't a lens out there that beats the rendering properties of these within their optimal working apertures!
OP
OP
My signature lists the Nikkor lenses I use…!
And you the most accurate and realistic 50mm lenses I have ever seen or tested.
The 105mm f2.5 is a darn good one as well.
OP
OP
Zeiss lenses certainly have rendering properties that many people love. But I find them to be a bit too much for my liking.
I prefer the slightly greater color accuracy (with Ektachrome) and exceptionally unmatched refinement of my Nikkor 50mm f2's.
OP
OP
You do know a 16 bit TIFF or drum scan costs $55 a frame…?
OP
OP
So let me get this straight.
To get the film scans to look as good as the images on my SD card going straight to my computer will set me back $2,000 a roll…?
To get the film scans to look as good as the images on my SD card going straight to my computer will set me back $2,000 a roll…?
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |