Fujifilm Exec's talk about Film

[Arctic amateur]

Speaking only from a technical perspective, I remember a that a few decades ago a photo magazine had an article about reaching 100 lines/mm resolution. (In this context, 100 lines/mm means 100 dark lines interleaved with 100 light lines, i.e. line pairs.) In fairness, they used a high contrast target, and resulting 100 lines/mm image was basically at the visible limit, i.e. low contrast. I think the film was Panatomic-X, which isn't made anymore.

Anyway, They were able to get very close to 100 lines/mm with with a number of lenses when used at optimum aperture, and they even reached that level with a few lenses.

There is something called the Nyquist sampling theorem, which states (in the case we are discussing here), you need at least 200 sampling points/mm to resolve 100 lines/mm. What does this imply? It means that you would need at least 34,560,000 image sensor, i.e. about 35 Megapixels for a 24x36mm image, i.e. a 35mm image.

How does 35 Megapixels map onto current technology? It means that with a 70 Megapixel camera you could come close to resolving 100 lines/mm.

You've doubled twice. 200 pixels/mm to resolve 100 line pairs/mm (please don't say lines/mm when you mean line pairs/mm) at the Nyquist limit gives a 4800x7200 pixel grid for 24x36 mm sensor size, or 35.6 megapixels. Not 70.

 

[Henning Serger]

I consider that 1% figure given by Fuji for their colour film sales very plausible based on the figures I got.

We all know that you don’t have any real sales figures from Fuji at all.
We all remember very well that just some time ago you said here several times that there is no Fuji Instax film revival.
If this „less than 1%“ number would be right that would mean, that
- Fujifilm would be selling less than 4 million films p.a.
- that would be less than half (!) of Ilfords volume
- but Fuji is offering 13 different standard films, more than any other manufacturer (without instant film; without OEM for AgfaPhoto e.g.), Ilford is offering only 10 films (including Kentmere, without OEM)
- Fuji is offering several CN films at extremely low prices: C200 cost you only about a buck here so far; you simply cannot do that with a low volume production (especially not with colour film)
- it would be less than the German market volume.
Sorry, but it is just impossible. Fuji could not operate their bigger factory at less than half of Ilfords scale. This "less than 1%" number can't be correct.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

So basically everyone is increasing their prices?

Dear Rachelle,

well, at least it would not surprise me. Because no one in the film industry (exception: probably Fuji Instax) is earning good money with film or paper! It is more or less a „+ / - 0“ operation with extremely hard competition. Many manufacturers have to work extremely hard not to make losses. Just look at Ilford, which has been so far one of the more successful companies in the business: Even they have made only a very tiny profit in the last two years. Not enough for bigger investments for the future.

Well, in many markets even lots of films are significantly cheaper (calculated with inflation) than 20-25 years ago! But the market has dropped by about 96% in the last 15 years. So it is a kind of wonder that we still have had so much film and paper at so low prices!! Film and paper manufacturers are forced to balance their prices to production costs, exchange rates and demand to stay in business. And from the talks I’ve had with almost all manufacturers they all confirmed that they want to stay in the business and continue production.

From the demand side we have two major problems:
1. The „BW fundamentalism“:
You can find it extremely often here on apug. People who shoot only BW in film, and colour with digital, or no colour at all. There are hundreds of thousands of it. And their behaviour is of course severly hurting Fuji and Kodak. The production of film at Fuji and Kodak is dependant on colour film. That is their most important volume which keeps the lines running. They need it to produce BW, too. Without Portra or Gold films, there will be no Tri-X. Without Provia, Velvia, Pro 400H and Superia, there will be no Acros.
So, if you love Acros, and want Neopan 400 to be re-introduced, you definitely should shoot also some Provia, Velvia, Pro 400H or Superia etc. to keep the Fuji production lines running.
And if you love Tri-X or T-Max, you should better also use some Portras or Gold etc.

2.The „hybrid fundametalism“:
People, who go for the lowest quality in the imaging chain: Shooting film but then only scanning it (often with quite crappy scanners) and then only watching the scans on computer monitors (delivering the lowest resolution of all imaging chains, and no real half tones and often not optimal colours). They don’t make prints anymore. But the silver-halid photo paper business is extremely important for Fujifilm, Kodak Alaris, Ilford, Foma, Adox, Bergger. They need this business! Much much more m² of silver-halide photo paper are produced than m² of film.
So, if you want the manufacturers staying in business, make prints, too!! Go to the darkroom and make wonderful prints on real silver-halide photo paper. Or if you work with scanners, then send your files to a lab which exposes the pictures on silver-halide paper. There are lots of excellent labs out there who offer the real stuff, real photo paper prints from your files (both in colour and BW).

Again, it is also in our hands what will happen with the industry!

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello,

Concerning the resolution topic discussed by some members here above.
I am doing lens, film, developer (and lately sensor) tests for more than 20 years now, on a scientific basis.
Running a private, independent non-profit optic lab and a network of experienced photographers working on these subjects. We have more than 10,000 test shots here and have tested almost all films of the market during the years.
So I certainly can give you exact answers.

“A digital FF camera has today higher resolution than film”. We often hear this, even here on apug.
That is not true. Not in this absolute generalisation. The reality is more complex. In this generalisation it is an internet myth mostly spread by people who have never did proper tests by themselves. And it is based mostly on all this silly scanned film vs. digital comparisons. But these are not analog vs. digital tests: It are all digital vs. digital tests. A scanner is a kind of digital camera. And scanners, even the best drum scanners, cannot capture the full resolution of film. But Apo enlarging lenses and high quality projection lenses can do, at least much better than even drum scanners (we tested that all over the years).

The resolution with sensors is limited by the Nyquist frequency. This is a physical barrier. It is impossible to get more. With the best lenses you can come quite close to this limit (about 5-10% beneath the limit). For example with the Nikon D800E we’ve got 90-95 lp/mm with the best lens. And 105-110 lp/mm with the Canon 5Ds.
But these are only values for black and white subjects! Because of the Bayer pattern (50% of the pixels with a green filter, 25% for red and blue), as Alan above has already explained, it is much less (40% less on average, depending on the sensor and software).

With film we don’t have these problems: There is no Nyquist limit with film, and green, red and blue are recorded at 100% all.
So let’s have a look at the test results of those who have done very detailed, scientific tests:

Carl Zeiss:
Zeiss published system resolution (Zeiss lens + film) values in their camera lens news 17, 19, 20, 24 and 30. Object contrast about 1:32 (five stops). Some examples:
Velvia 50: 160 lp/mm (lp = linepairs per millimetre)
Velvia 100F: 170 lp/mm
Acros 100: 160 lp/mm
T-Max 100: 180 lp/mm
Agfa APX 25 : 200 lp/mm
Agfaortho 25 : 250 lp/mm
Spur Orthopan UR: 400 lp/mm (with 25mm ZM Biogon at f4; 400 lp/mm is the diffraction limit of white light at f4!)

160 lp/mm with Velvia 50 is the value Fuji has published for this film for an object contrast of 1:1000 (10 stops). The resolution values Fuji has published are very conservative, especially the ones of their color films. I've seen results from a collegue who achieved even higher results at medium contrast than Fuji has published for high contrast.
That is all right and not a contradiction because:

Resolution is dependant on object contrast, but it is not a linear relation, but following "the law of diminishing returns". It is an asymptotic curve.
It doesn't matter much whether you have 6 or 10 stops object contrast, the resolution is almost the same.
But it does matter whether you have 0,5 or 2 stops object contrast. In this range there is an almost linear relation (see camera lens news no. 30 for further details). In this low contrast range up to 1,5 stops the modern 24 MP and 35 MP 24x36 sensors have a very good resolution performance and are better than most films (not all films). But from 1,5 stops on and higher, in the medium and higher contrast range, modern films (especially color reversal films, tabular grain BW films and of course microfilms), show a significantly higher resolution. Because they are not limited by the Nyquist frequency like digital sensors.

Tests from our team:
We have tested all the films with a relative low object contrast of 1:4 (two stops). Lenses were Nikkor AI-S 1,8/50 (long barrel version) and Zeiss ZF 2/50 at f5,6 (and some others as well).
Both lenses have the same performance in the center at f4 and f5,6, but the Zeiss is generally better at the corners and at f2 and 2,8.
Some test results from our resolution tests (Nikon F6, MLU, MC-30, 1/250s, focus bracketing, Zeiss ZF 2/50, f5,6, Nikkor AI-S 1,8/50, object contrast 1:4; Berlebach Report 3032; the first resolution value represents the number of clearly separated lines, the second one the resolution limit where still a contrast difference can be seen):

Adox CMS 20 and CMS 20 II/ Spur Orthopan UR developed in: Spur Nano Edge, Spur Nanospeed UR, Spur Modular UR, Adotech, Adotech II: 240 - 260 Lp/mm
That is the physical diffraction limit for white light at f5,6 !

Agfa Copex Rapid; ISO 40/17°; Spur Modular UR New, Spur Dokuspeed: 165 – 180 Lp/mm
TMX, developed in HRX: 135 - 150 Lp/mm
Retro 80S, HRX, ISO 25/15°: 135 – 145 lp/mm
Delta 100, HRX: 130 – 140 lp/mm
Acros 100, HRX: 115 – 130 lp/mm
Pan F+, HRX: 110 – 130 lp/mm

Fuji Velvia 50: 110 – 125 Lp/mm
Fuji Sensia 100: 120 – 135 Lp/mm
Fuji Provia 100F: 125 – 135 Lp/mm
Fuji Astia 100F: 120 – 135 Lp/mm
Fuji Velvia 100: 125 – 140 Lp/mm
Fuji Velvia 100F: 125 – 140 Lp/mm
Kodak E100G: 120 – 135 Lp/mm
Kodak Elitechrome 100: 120 – 135 Lp/mm
Fuji Provia 400X: 105 – 115 Lp/mm

Fuji Superia Reala 100: 105 – 115 Lp/mm
Fuji Pro 160 C: 100 – 115 Lp/mm
Kodak Ektar: 90 – 105 Lp/mm

We’ve further done all the relevant tests in the following imaging chain: Optical printing, slide projection, scanning (both with 4000ppi semi-professional scanners and high-end drum scanners).
Optical printing and slide projection delivers by far the the highest resolution. With excellent lenses you can transfer the above listed resolution values with only a minimal (not relevant) loss onto paper and on the projection screen!
The resolution loss with high-end drum scanners (e.g. Imacon X5 and ICG 370 HS) is significant, the resolution performance is worse compared to optical printing with enlarging lenses and slide projection.
The biggest resolution loss and worst performance deliverd the Nikon Coolscan 5000 scanner.
It’s resolution limit is 65-70 lp/mm at this object contrast of 1:4.

Tests from Tim Parkin:
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cms20-vs.jpg
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/

Tests from Antora et.al and Heuer et.al:
http://www.aphog.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=401&Itemid=1

Best regards,
Henning

 

[miha]

1. The „BW fundamentalism“...

There are hundreds of thousands of it...

And their behaviour is of course severly hurting Fuji and Kodak.

I don't think i need to add anything to this illogic. I'm certainly not hurting aynone by buying what I'm buying.

 

[AgX]

We all know that you don’t have any real sales figures from Fuji at all.
We all remember very well that just some time ago you said here several times that there is no Fuji Instax film revival.

Henning, who is "We"?

You do not even know who I am, except for trying some idiotic guesswork.


Do not discredit yourself, keep this civilized and do not tell lies. I did NOT say there is no Instax revival. I said there was not marketing and Instax cameras were unavailable in my area. Let's say 5 Million people.



As I said in the past, there are people doing something and people telling about something.

The future will decide whose impact was important.

 

[Henning Serger]

You do not even know who I am, except for trying some idiotic guesswork.

I don't do any guesses. It does not interest me. You are hiding behind your "AgX". You don't have the honesty to show who you are.
No one in the industry knows an "AgX". You are not existent for anyone there. No one knows you.
If you really want that the public take you serious, tell who you really are. Like Ron Mowrey, Simon Galley, Neil Hibbs, Fred Shippey, Mirko Böddecker, Aurélien Le Duc or Robert Shanebrook have done here for example.

You can critisize me, no problem.
But at least I show my face and stand with my real name for what I am saying and doing.

I did NOT say there is no Instax revival.

Sorry, you did. You have doubted what is happening there. Also in the pn's with me. But forget it, it doesn't matter anymore.

Regards,
Henning

 

[Photo Engineer]

I seem to be on an off-topic tear lately, but here goes anyway.

On October 6 2015, George Eastman House changed its name to George Eastman Museum. Yes, Ron, I know, old habits die hard.

http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.c...eastman-house-announces-new-name-logo-website​

Quite true, but as a nearly charter member of the organization when it was under the first director, my feeble old mind still thinks GEH instead of GEM!

So there!

 

[alanrockwood]

You've doubled twice. 200 pixels/mm to resolve 100 line pairs/mm (please don't say lines/mm when you mean line pairs/mm) at the Nyquist limit gives a 4800x7200 pixel grid for 24x36 mm sensor size, or 35.6 megapixels. Not 70.

Thanks for the comment.

To clarify, you are correct in saying that you need 35.6 megapixels to resolve 100 line pairs/mm. However, I think you may have overlooked the fact that a "35 megapixel camera" is not actually a 35 megapixel camera, at least not in the sense that a signal processing engineer would use the term.

As explained in the paragraph following the passage you quoted, to get 35 million sampling points you actually need a 70 megapixel camera. The reason is that a "70 megapixel" camera using a Bayer sensor forms a composite image from three interleaved sensor arrays. The highest resolution of the three is the 35 megapixel green sensor array. This means that you can resolve about 100 line pairs per mm in the green part of the image (I'm rounding the number off slightly for convenience). The red sensor array has a 17.5 megapixel array, which can resolve the red part of the image at 70 line pairs per mm. The blue sensor array has 17.5 megapixel array, which can resolve the blue part of the image at 70 line pairs per mm. Thus, a "70 megapixel" camera is really only a 35 megapixel camera at best, and that is only for the green part of the image.

Consequently, when the camera manufacturer says something like "35 megapixel" they are deceiving you. Why? Probably for marketing purposes. It may be true that they are outputting an image of 35 megapixel, but that image is an interpolated image, i.e. a lower-resolution image that is up-sampled. It does not have the the same resolution as would be produced by a true 35 megapixel sensor.

Also, I briefly mentioned contrast but didn't elaborate in more detail on how that issue plays into the larger resolution topic. Henning Serger tackled that topic in a later post, and also gave a lot of relevant data on the resolution measured for various film/lens combinations and how contrast relates to those numbers.

The bottom line is that the resolution available on film is far higher than most people realize. However, the higher resolution part is at lower contrast and the eye does not fully benefit from the higher resolution part.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Henning,

Very impressive to see these details.

Yet I'm disappointed that on digital photography forums the belief is that "a 6MP camera matches 35mm quality". They think common 16MP and 24MP cameras are capable of far superior image quality and that with the high-end 36MP, 50MP cameras, there is no contest at all.

 

[Truzi]

Hello,

Concerning the resolution topic discussed by some members here above.
I am doing lens, film, developer (and lately sensor) tests for more than 20 years now, on a scientific basis....

Thanx for the information. I found it difficult to find this information on the web, and you have stated it more completely than I've found so far.

On a tangent, while film resolution is measured by actually counting lines on film or paper, megapixels is just a count of the available photo sensors (ignoring the bayer filter, etc.); it seems to me a theoretical measure. I'm sure digital is also affected by contrast and lenses.

I'm curious, is there any data on digital resolution measured as we would with film? Actually through a lens at a given contrast, and not merely counting pixels? (Perhaps I missed it in one of your posts).

 

[pentaxuser]

Yet I'm disappointed that on digital photography forums the belief is that "a 6MP camera matches 35mm quality". They think common 16MP and 24MP cameras are capable of far superior image quality and that with the high-end 36MP, 50MP cameras, there is no contest at all.

Aren't there quite a few on APUG who also believe the same from posts I have seen?

pentaxuser

 

[georg16nik]

Henning,

Very impressive to see these details.

Yet I'm disappointed that on digital photography forums the belief is that "a 6MP camera matches 35mm quality". They think common 16MP and 24MP cameras are capable of far superior image quality and that with the high-end 36MP, 50MP cameras, there is no contest at all.

[...]

Aren't there quite a few on APUG who also believe the same from posts I have seen?

pentaxuser

Yes, post #32, or just page 4 to 6 or so.
No need to go to D forums, we got inexperienced darkroom virgins in excess on APUG.
“good full frame DSLR will just plain spank any 35mm film... by Roger Cole”
Roger is not alone, there are thousands of threads full of humor and digital bliss.

 

[pentaxuser]

when Fuji's digital execs talk about about film, then mostly......much ado about nothing.
There is a long history over the years that these guys are not very well informed (I am also talking from my own experience with some of them... ).


P.S.: Concerning the just announced Fuji price increase: Kodak will increase prices, too. 15%, from February on. Source: One of the biggest worldwide online film distributors. An absolutely reliable source.

Is the first paragraph above a reference to your meeting with the Fuji exec who assured you that Neopan 400 was on its way back? Was this a digital exec you met or a film exec that was thwarted by his digital brothers or just a Fuji exec that just didn't know what he was talking about?

I sympathise. If I had met a Fuji exec who had given the rosy but false picture he seemed to have given and which you reported on APUG, then I'd be cautious next time as well

Can you say why you are so sure that buying more Fuji colour film, both E6 and C41 will persuade Fuji to resurrect some B&W films and reconcile this with the first part of the quote.

I take it that like the rest of us you unfortunately have no reliable source for Ilford products, given the sudden announcement about llford price increases, some of which apparently make Kodak's 15% increase look very modest but of which you made no mention

pentaxuser

 

[RattyMouse]

Neopan 400 is never coming back. So much for Fujifilm 's "support" for film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You are hiding behind your "AgX". You don't have the honesty to show who you are.
No one in the industry knows an "AgX". You are not existent for anyone there. No one knows you.

On APUG and many other forums users are not required to use their names.

oliceman: Go sit in the corner for a while. oliceman:

 

[MattKing]

A while back I put together a really long, beautifully written post on why much of the problem with these discussions is that inevitably people compare the results obtained using purely digital equipment with the results obtained when a film image is converted to digital.

Really, it was beautifully written .......

Of course, that particular thread blew up, and was completely scrubbed from the site.

I have friends that have gone the other direction. They invested in equipment that converts digital files to film transparencies or negatives.

In either case, the final result suffers, because the conversion process isn't perfect - you just cannot do it without losing something.

That is not to say that you cannot obtain fairly high quality, and add other desirable attributes by doing the conversion with high quality (and relatively expensive) conversion equipment and procedures.

Especially when you consider the incredibly low prices for really high quality film equipment, vs the relatively high prices for middling quality amateur digital equipment.

But if a significant portion of your process involves digital techniques, than a completely digital workflow will have an advantage.

And if the most significant portion of your process involves analog techniques, than a completely analog workflow will have an advantage.

 

[Ai Print]

Yes, post #32, or just page 4 to 6 or so.
No need to go to D forums, we got inexperienced darkroom virgins in excess on APUG.
“good full frame DSLR will just plain spank any 35mm film... by Roger Cole”
Roger is not alone, there are thousands of threads full of humor and digital bliss.

Yet I'm disappointed that on digital photography forums the belief is that "a 6MP camera matches 35mm quality". They think common 16MP and 24MP cameras are capable of far superior image quality and that with the high-end 36MP, 50MP cameras, there is no contest at all.

I guess my experience with this is turning out differently, especially in the past few years.

For starters, the last thing I want to do as a passionate user of film, the darkroom and unwavering promoter of these materials is to alienate those who would choose film by saying one is better than the other. When I started using film in 1976, it was already 99% the brilliant, deep and whimsical medium that is is now. But when I was told by the editor of the newspaper I was working at in 1994 that we were going to "Go Digital"...wow, was it total crap and it stayed that way for some time.

Folks, that is not years but decades of heavy use of both mediums. Now, I only will choose a camera system if I can use a film body or back with it's digital component. No film body, no dice, because there is no way in heck I am only using just digital for the rest of my career. The images I create are used in all shapes and sizes, from web / social, advertising to murals that are over 30 feet wide. When it comes to black and white, I simply don't shoot it in digital, I don't see the point given how easy it is to arrive at stunning silver gelatin prints with a moderate investment of time and money. On Tuesday I am shooting a day-in-the-life-of series for a client that I will use a pair of Leica rangefinders with Tmax 400. I will process all the film the next day and then make some two dozen prints from it, scan from those and have a nice editorial show to boot.

But tomorrow, I will shoot a job in a ski area using a Hasselblad 501CM, 50mm, 80mm and 180mm lenses and three backs. Two backs will have Acros 100 & Tmax 400, the third is a 50MP digital back. This Fall I had planned to take a pair of Leica film bodies to Cuba with some 75 rolls of Fuji Provia 400X, I recently ran a test roll since I had never used the film. While the film looked nice overall, I have decided to sell the 400X and use Tmax 400 instead. This is all going somewhere, so bear with me...

I am a photographer who has photos published and printed and despite what has been said here in terms of scientific metrics, from 24MP and up, I *see* color digital well exceeding what any speed color film in 35mm does in the final print or publication. My Leica M240 at ISO 400 is significantly better than the Provia 400X drum scanned using the same $4,500 Leica 35mm 1.4 FLE aspheric, it has fabulous color rendition and never ending sharpness, the same is true of my D750 & D810 with either Zeiss or recent Nikon glass. But the Hasselblad back?...wow, simply spectacular in every way and easily printing to 4x5 feet with mesmerizing detail and color fidelity.

So I know Henning is going to hate me, because I am very much one of the people who will never substitute digital for the black and white darkroom but have to give the nod to the "D word" for color...hands down. I still have a stock of both C41 and E6 in 35, 120 and 4x5 and have some really fun projects to use it on, but once I am out, I am probably done with it, a personal choice based not on what people have told me but what I have seen in person. I love, love, LOVE the look of a perfectly exposed color transparency on my light table, that is the emotional response which is in my opinion the most important one in this craft. But I would be lying my rear end off if I said I were not even more impressed by what I am seeing with digital in color.

I know how the above sounds, but in a town chock full of professional photographers, I am the only one who uses film, only one who promotes it and I am working my rear end off to create a public darkroom in my area. But the above is my direct professional experience in having used both mediums for many years, so don't shoot / hate the messenger.

Sorry Henning...I love me some black and white prints...

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

[...]


Yes, post #32, or just page 4 to 6 or so.
No need to go to D forums, we got inexperienced darkroom virgins in excess on APUG.
“good full frame DSLR will just plain spank any 35mm film... by Roger Cole”
Roger is not alone, there are thousands of threads full of humor and digital bliss.

Except one thing: what Roger said there is fact. Enjoy.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

A while back I put together a really long, beautifully written post on why much of the problem with these discussions is that inevitably people compare the results obtained using purely digital equipment with the results obtained when a film image is converted to digital.

Really, it was beautifully written .......

Of course, that particular thread blew up, and was completely scrubbed from the site.

I have friends that have gone the other direction. They invested in equipment that converts digital files to film transparencies or negatives.

In either case, the final result suffers, because the conversion process isn't perfect - you just cannot do it without losing something.

That is not to say that you cannot obtain fairly high quality, and add other desirable attributes by doing the conversion with high quality (and relatively expensive) conversion equipment and procedures.

Especially when you consider the incredibly low prices for really high quality film equipment, vs the relatively high prices for middling quality amateur digital equipment.

But if a significant portion of your process involves digital techniques, than a completely digital workflow will have an advantage.

And if the most significant portion of your process involves analog techniques, than a completely analog workflow will have an advantage.

Hate to make it known, but except for the intricate nature of the involved and mathematical process, there is no real end advantage of scanning analogue to digital print output, and as Matt says, "...without losing something". That's very true. The results in skilled hands of course are exceptionally good and fool many viewers thinking the print came straight from a whatever-digi, but the full digital workflow (second last statement in Matt's post) is the sensible, cost-effective, lossless way to go.

 

[georg16nik]

Except one thing: what Roger said there is fact. Enjoy.

What kind of traditional photographer is presenting scanned film as fact?
How dare you guys calling yourself film photographers?

You can put me and Henning on ignore list or call us film extremists but where is the ignorance list, so that we can put you where you belong?

 

[Xmas]

This is APUG.
But I've stopped doing 8x10 wet contact prints as the toy plastic scanner has a live view mode you can view strip of six in less than six seconds for any keepers, even on my web book.
If you scan it for contrast ratios and mark up a gilee print with burn and dodge instructions it can save a lot of time with test prints and templates/masks.
And file the serial number of the negative file on the computer.
But I still wet print, and my enlarger exposure meter still means I still need a test strip.
So I'm not a real hybrid, maybe...

Lots of people still use film cameras cause they don't have any other sort.

 

[removed account4]

what does any of this have to do with " Fujifilm Exec's talk about Film " ???

It's still digital imagery but if you are blind enough to enjoy it... keep up it up.

What kind of traditional photographer is presenting scanned film as fact?
How dare you guys calling yourself film photographers?

You can put me and Henning on ignore list or call us film extremists but where is the ignorance list, so that we can put you where you belong?

its nice to see such insulting, open minded people on apug !

who cares about any of this film vs digital BS ..

 

[georg16nik]

what does any of this have to do with " Fujifilm Exec's talk about Film " ???
...
its nice to see such insulting, open minded people on apug !

who cares about any of this film vs digital BS ..

Fujifilm Exec's track record shows they are as clueless about film as some APUGers. Perfectly on topic.
If you have a problem with that just don't read certain threads. Easy peasy.

john, it's not film vs digital but more like digital vs digital - digital scanner vs digital camera, presented as is film vs digital.

 

[Roger Cole]

what does any of this have to do with " Fujifilm Exec's talk about Film " ???








its nice to see such insulting, open minded people on apug !

who cares about any of this film vs digital BS ..

I wouldn't care, if he wasn't obnoxious about it.