My summary of personal observations:
1. Limited options for new 35mm scanning. Maybe this new scanner (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...image_primefilm_xas_scanner.html?sts=pi&pim=Y) is a step in the right direction.
One Industrial Film and Chemicals customer of professional and consumer still photographic film and chemicals represented approximately 20% of total Brand, Film and Imaging segment revenues in 2019.
Using a changing bag is a nightmare.
It collapses on your hands disturbing the process, and after just a couple of minutes and a few mistakes it’s becomes a tropical biosphere.
It’s even worse with 120 than 135. I’ve never been able to find my way with it.
I’ve heard of small changing tents that leave a bit more space and ventilation to work in.
That might be the ticket, though since they didn’t become popular, I doubt that they are a very different experience.
Not trying to be combative, but I have to ask; "What are your suggestions"?
Eastman Kodak sold their medical and X-ray film business to Carestream some time before the bankruptcy.industrial film products (which would include medical products like X-ray film as well as the tiny remaining scientific market)
This thread may be missing some content, we've had to re-ban a disruptive account coming in under a new alias. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
While we are at it, I highly suggest someone tool back up the Graflex production line and produced 5x7 reflex graphic with AF and color matrix metering, but in carbon fiber and make it for $500...
Absolutely! ..
But digital camera scanning is also completely impractical and presents an insurmountable number of difficulties to the vast majority of film shooters....
I wouldn't discourage people from trying it, but I'm not altogether sure that flat field macro work where the qualities of the transmitted light source are extremely important and resolution is critical is something that I would describe as "super easy to do".How so? If you already have a digi cam it is super easy to do. And if you don't, you can pick a used one up super cheap AND it also work as a camera!
I wouldn't discourage people from trying it, but I'm not altogether sure that flat field macro work where the qualities of the transmitted light source are extremely important and resolution is critical is something that I would describe as "super easy to do".
And there you'll stay... Permanent ignore.It’s super easy once you know how.
But imagine asking someone who is dipping their toes or getting started, esp. a woman (yes I went there), to “just buy”:
It’s super easy once you know how.
But imagine asking someone who is dipping their toes or getting started, esp. a woman (yes I went there), to “just buy”:
A used DSLR
A macro lens, perhaps bellows/tubes
Light table/flash with extension cord and diffusion box
“Some way” to hold the film flat
Copy stand (tripod is not going to cut it for moveable setups)
Get a LR subscription
Buy NLP
And then find a place to store it all, learn to set it up and finally properly use it.
For ninety percent of the people shooting film now, it’s not going to happen.
Ever.
And is going to be something the rest will have to think long and hard about before they embark on.
It would be so easy to make an integrated, bonsai version of the above that it’s frankly incredible that some electronics manufacturer haven’t attempted it yet.
You have got to be f'in kidding me. What year is it where you live? Don't answer, I don't want to talk to a misogynist anyway.But imagine asking someone who is dipping their toes or getting started, esp. a woman (yes I went there)
But imagine asking someone who is dipping their toes or getting started, esp. a woman
You are right, and the prices of recently manufactured quality 35mm cameras have gone through the roof. For instance, one cannot find a used Bessa R rangefinder for less than $500 or so now - it was a new, economy grade, entry level 35mm range finder when it came out a few years ago. Back then used prices were around $200 or so, and new ones could be found for about $300 - then production halted. I simply don't think the companies that can make cameras like that realize there is a market - yet at least. Oddly enough, there have been several new and very interesting full frame 35mm format lenses appearing in recent years, but probably because of full frame digital sensors.35 mm has been the entry into photography for the past 50, 40 years, each year the stock of used cameras is reduced. One of our local high schools closed it's analog photography class and darkroom as parents were complaining about the lack of new affordable 35mm cameras,. Not knowing what to buy they would the camera that lasted a few rolls, wound in a bidding war over a few local mechanical cameras like the K 1000.
In my case, that means a different lens, because my macro equipment only works with a full frame body and my digital camera is M4/3. I would also need a step-up ring to allow use of the ES-2. I have concerns about the $20 light source, but a lot of that comes from my "particularness" about colour, and I'm sure I could deal with my need for a more accurate continuous source.All you need is 3 items for 35mm film - camera, lens and Nikon ES-2 film copier/holder. That is it. You can point the contraption at the sky if you don't want to spend $20 for a light source.
I've actually considered just having an open digital camera body, with exposed sensor (with a piece of a glass over to avoid dust) under an enlarger, and then slide the camera around on a plane slider (felt or glass) to capture the frame as an enlargement only limited by the enlargers ability to enlarge and perhaps the depth of the mirror box.@Helge Or one of us analog Luddites. I never owned a DSLR until I met my current partner just about five years ago. I have, once, used a 5 MP P&S digital aimed up into the lens of an enlarger to digitize sugminiature negatives, getting around 3 MP (after crop) from a 10x14 mm Minolta 16 frame. It was better than my flatbed scanner could do at 1200 ppi.
I was considering doing the same with my partner's D90 and macro setup, copy stand, etc. to beat the 2 MP my scanner can get from 35mm, but the scanner decided this was a good year to die (it was built in 1998, after all), so I've ordered a new one that should get 30+ megapixel from 35mm, and in the neighborhood of 5 MP from a Minolta 16 (I might still attempt the DSLR/macro setup if I start shooting more with the subminis, since if I can fill the frame in a D90 I can get 8-12 MP).
I'd never consider LightRoom -- I use GIMP; it's free (and LR probably doesn't work in Linux -- see, I'm not a Luddite in every field).
Excluding the reference to a particular gender, Helge's post matches what I think about this.
In my case, that means a different lens, because my macro equipment only works with a full frame body and my digital camera is M4/3. I would also need a step-up ring to allow use of the ES-2. I have concerns about the $20 light source, but a lot of that comes from my "particularness" about colour, and I'm sure I could deal with my need for a more accurate continuous source.
That being said, my initial comment was about the meaning of "super easy". Things that Huss and others can do easily because they have most of everything they would need at hand and the skills and experience to make use of it are "super easy" - for them. For others, not super easy.
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?