Lack of affordable new cameras = death knell for film photography?
-
A
- Thread starter Horatio
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Kodak Polytoner
- Started by Guillaume Zuili
-
For Sale PLAUBEL MAKINA 67 GRIP
- Started by Guillaume Zuili
-
For Sale FS: Gundlach-Manhattan Hyperion Diffusion 7in f/4 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
Forum statistics
would be great to see.
As I wrote out, above, the 'hypothetical' film workflow that would, in my view, allow to compete film with digital,
I, sort of, assumed availability of significant automation of 'format-specific' scanning technology.
I personally do not think existing flat bed scanners would serve as a foundation of that automation in 35mm film world
(due to manual work that requires feeding/setting the negatives before the scanner can operate).
However, for medium, and especially large format -- I think they have a place.
If could check how the two scanners perform given vastly different resolution claims, we would at least know the 'fudge' factor
associated with the flatbed scanner resolution.
As I wrote out, above, the 'hypothetical' film workflow that would, in my view, allow to compete film with digital,
I, sort of, assumed availability of significant automation of 'format-specific' scanning technology.
I personally do not think existing flat bed scanners would serve as a foundation of that automation in 35mm film world
(due to manual work that requires feeding/setting the negatives before the scanner can operate).
However, for medium, and especially large format -- I think they have a place.
If could check how the two scanners perform given vastly different resolution claims, we would at least know the 'fudge' factor
associated with the flatbed scanner resolution.
Step one accomplished: found the negatives (they were archived before the house was torn up). I've also verified that the "new to me" scanner works. My negative carriers should arrive today or tomorrow; once they do, I'll be able to rescan negatives that I've previously scanned (and stored as full resolution scanner-RAW .DNG files).
Note that this Perfection 4870 is still an obsolete flatbed; it uses cold cathode fluorescent as its scanning light source, hence takes warm-up time, vs. current models with LED light. Still, it claims 4x resolution over the old Arcus 1200, as well as adjustable focus (however, it lacks glassless scan capability -- the old Arcus had a scan glass that pulled out and was replaced by the chosen film scanning frame).
Honestly, people who strongly prefer automation probably aren't shooting film at all. Those would be the folks who abandoned oil paints and charcoals in the 1870s/1880s in favor of photography, because you could get a print the next day, instead of working weeks on a finished painting. People who care about painting as an art, on the other hand, see that slowness as an innate quality of that technique -- just as I see the smell of stop bath and fixer as an innate part of photography.
I'm also guilty of stuff-lying-around as a basis for solutions. For people who don't have such stuff, it represents a fair amount of gear, money and time. It depends how badly you need to digitise negatives and slides compared to their traditional means of exhibition. For someone who shoots film exclusively and regularly, all forms of digitisation are slow and the resulting print will carry artefacts of film and digital production. The biggest breakthrough would be some means of automating the process, so each frame doesn't require individual attention.
I can spend an entire evening scanning a single roll of 120, tweaking it in Photoshop and producing a finished file. A few rolls of 35mm can take all my spare time for a week, and I don't have a print at the end. I mostly use flat bed scans as superior kind of contact print, or for use in printed books where the definition is sufficient.
Pretty much the only "stuff lying around" solution for digitizing film that's available to new photographers who start with film is a cell phone -- with a little effort you can optimize this method to get 2/3 or more of your phone's pixel count filled with the frame. Of course, phone manufacturers make that number up, in general. If you manage to dig up the actual sensor pixel count, you'll find your 12 MP phone (like my first-gen Pixel) really has 3 MP and a "high quality" interpolation algorithm.
Still about as good as my 1998 scanner (taken out of service just a couple days ago) was, on a 35mm (better on a smaller frame), and someone who's got a little "arts and crafts" ability can order everything they need for a film "scanner" for their phone from Dick Blick, assuming they have a tablet, laptop, or similar to provide backlight (and many folks do). Cost around $20.
Still about as good as my 1998 scanner (taken out of service just a couple days ago) was, on a 35mm (better on a smaller frame), and someone who's got a little "arts and crafts" ability can order everything they need for a film "scanner" for their phone from Dick Blick, assuming they have a tablet, laptop, or similar to provide backlight (and many folks do). Cost around $20.
If someone were to design/adapt a classic camera body, not too small, but there again. not oversize shall we say like a Pentax Spotmatic. Then update it with matrix metering, TTL flash and an uprated shutter of around 30 sec to 1/4000. No fancy fiddly knobs to adjust features that I don't want or use. No motor drive, Just a simple straight forward 100% reliable camera, with a lithium rechargeable battery pack. Let it be made mostly of metal, preferably titanium. If the lenses were simple bayonet fit like a Pentax MX. Manual exposure with an option of aperture priority, I don't even want/need an electronic lens diaphragm, then I would be 1st in the queue
0
My film carriers arrived today -- and I discovered the ones I bought aren't the right ones. Apparently the 4870 and 4990 use very different film carriers (I thought they were the same bed, just a resolution upgrade for the 4990).
So I still don't have a set of negative carriers that fits this scanner, though I've done a couple tests by dropping the negatives on the glass in their archive pages. With the old Arcus 1200, this would have resulted in slightly out of focus images; with the Perfection 4870, it works reasonably well (backing up the claim of autofocus). With the image/file size limitations of this forum board, I'll have to post large scans externally (which doesn't bode well for the long term aging ability of this thread). Given the focus adjustment exists, let me see if laying the Agfa's negative carrier on the Epson's glass will get me anywhere (I suspect the calibration slots will cause trouble, but let's find out).
Sigh. No, that didn't work at all. Calibration problems, as I suspected.
Let's try the 4990 carrier. Works, in that it will scan film in the carrier slots. Doesn't work in that it's too far off the glass and even in manual, I can't force it into focus.
Time to go shop for the right negative carriers.
My film carriers arrived today -- and I discovered the ones I bought aren't the right ones. Apparently the 4870 and 4990 use very different film carriers (I thought they were the same bed, just a resolution upgrade for the 4990).
So I still don't have a set of negative carriers that fits this scanner, though I've done a couple tests by dropping the negatives on the glass in their archive pages. With the old Arcus 1200, this would have resulted in slightly out of focus images; with the Perfection 4870, it works reasonably well (backing up the claim of autofocus). With the image/file size limitations of this forum board, I'll have to post large scans externally (which doesn't bode well for the long term aging ability of this thread). Given the focus adjustment exists, let me see if laying the Agfa's negative carrier on the Epson's glass will get me anywhere (I suspect the calibration slots will cause trouble, but let's find out).
Sigh. No, that didn't work at all. Calibration problems, as I suspected.
Let's try the 4990 carrier. Works, in that it will scan film in the carrier slots. Doesn't work in that it's too far off the glass and even in manual, I can't force it into focus.
Time to go shop for the right negative carriers.
Have you asked Epson directly?
Okay, change of plan.
Apparently, the only film carriers available for the 4870 I just bought are modified 4990 units, at about $127 each (vs. the $70 plus shipping I paid for a set of four -- 4x 35mm 6-frame strips, 2x 120 1/4 roll strips, 2x 4x5, and 12x 2x2 mounted slides, masked for 35mm frame). Looking closely at the modified units, it was obvious what mods were made -- they took off the standoff feet, and then removed the alignment tabs on the user's right edge. Conversion obviously requires sophisticated tools -- converting the 35mm carrier took me about five minutes, with fingertips (the feet have clip latches accessible from the top side, just squeeze and they drop out), a folding knife I carry every day (to score the alignment tabs so they break off cleanly), and the file blade of my Leatherman multi-tool (to smooth off where the tabs were removed).
With the conversion completed, I found the auto focus apparently succeeds, and got what appears to be a correctly focused scan. Here's a 1:1 crop comparison, all from same negative frame.
From the Agfa Arcus 1200, original glassless carrier at fixed-focus position (pardon the apparently underexposure, this is cropped from the raw TIFF scan rather than the auto-corrected JPG). 1:1 crop.
Epson Perfection 4870, modified 4990 film holder on bed glass, autofocus, 4800 ppi. Yep, it's 4x the size, 16x pixel count. Cropped from JPG (hence exposure corrected).
Epson, closer crop.
Epson, same crop as above, 2400 ppi.
This all stems from the discussion about how "easy" it is or isn't for a new film photographer to digitize their images. Obviously, if you're sending your film out, you almost can't avoid getting a DVD or thumb drive with lower resolution scans than even the Agfa Arcus example above. Digitizing doesn't get any easier than that, but if you don't live in a major city, you probably don't have a local processing lab, so you wind up sending your film hundreds or thousands of miles to one of the big labs that advertises online. Cost will be close to $20, including priced-in postage, to get your negatives back along with the scans (else why both with film, just shoot digital in the first place), a little more to get higher resolution scans, even as good as the Agfa scan above (just under 2 megapixel from a 35mm frame).
This shows that, for about $200 (one time) and a little research, you can get 8-ish megapixels from 35mm even if you're downgrading your scans to half the nominal optical resolution of the scanner. At full optical resolution, you're likely to wind up doing some digital grain reduction (most casual users will do that anyway, along with automatic dust removal). But once you know you need to modify the film carriers, and how easy it is to do, along with learning to process your own film (also pretty easy, and you don't have to spend the money for that equipment at the same time you buy the used scanner), you can shoot film for a couple dollars a roll above the actual cost of the film itself, and the scanner pays for itself in a few months.
So, "easy" is relative. IMO, it's both easier and cheaper to obtain, set up, and use a flatbed scanner than a quality digital macro setup, with either slide copying attachment (only works on 35mm, remember, and requires you have a compatible camera body and lens) or copy stand, macro lens, and backlight source, and unless you've got a professional eye, you'll probably never be able to see the difference in the final images (certainly not if they're displayed on a common computer monitor).
Apparently, the only film carriers available for the 4870 I just bought are modified 4990 units, at about $127 each (vs. the $70 plus shipping I paid for a set of four -- 4x 35mm 6-frame strips, 2x 120 1/4 roll strips, 2x 4x5, and 12x 2x2 mounted slides, masked for 35mm frame). Looking closely at the modified units, it was obvious what mods were made -- they took off the standoff feet, and then removed the alignment tabs on the user's right edge. Conversion obviously requires sophisticated tools -- converting the 35mm carrier took me about five minutes, with fingertips (the feet have clip latches accessible from the top side, just squeeze and they drop out), a folding knife I carry every day (to score the alignment tabs so they break off cleanly), and the file blade of my Leatherman multi-tool (to smooth off where the tabs were removed).
With the conversion completed, I found the auto focus apparently succeeds, and got what appears to be a correctly focused scan. Here's a 1:1 crop comparison, all from same negative frame.
From the Agfa Arcus 1200, original glassless carrier at fixed-focus position (pardon the apparently underexposure, this is cropped from the raw TIFF scan rather than the auto-corrected JPG). 1:1 crop.
Epson Perfection 4870, modified 4990 film holder on bed glass, autofocus, 4800 ppi. Yep, it's 4x the size, 16x pixel count. Cropped from JPG (hence exposure corrected).
Epson, closer crop.
Epson, same crop as above, 2400 ppi.
This all stems from the discussion about how "easy" it is or isn't for a new film photographer to digitize their images. Obviously, if you're sending your film out, you almost can't avoid getting a DVD or thumb drive with lower resolution scans than even the Agfa Arcus example above. Digitizing doesn't get any easier than that, but if you don't live in a major city, you probably don't have a local processing lab, so you wind up sending your film hundreds or thousands of miles to one of the big labs that advertises online. Cost will be close to $20, including priced-in postage, to get your negatives back along with the scans (else why both with film, just shoot digital in the first place), a little more to get higher resolution scans, even as good as the Agfa scan above (just under 2 megapixel from a 35mm frame).
This shows that, for about $200 (one time) and a little research, you can get 8-ish megapixels from 35mm even if you're downgrading your scans to half the nominal optical resolution of the scanner. At full optical resolution, you're likely to wind up doing some digital grain reduction (most casual users will do that anyway, along with automatic dust removal). But once you know you need to modify the film carriers, and how easy it is to do, along with learning to process your own film (also pretty easy, and you don't have to spend the money for that equipment at the same time you buy the used scanner), you can shoot film for a couple dollars a roll above the actual cost of the film itself, and the scanner pays for itself in a few months.
So, "easy" is relative. IMO, it's both easier and cheaper to obtain, set up, and use a flatbed scanner than a quality digital macro setup, with either slide copying attachment (only works on 35mm, remember, and requires you have a compatible camera body and lens) or copy stand, macro lens, and backlight source, and unless you've got a professional eye, you'll probably never be able to see the difference in the final images (certainly not if they're displayed on a common computer monitor).
Thank you for going through the trouble to post results of your film digitization on 2 different scanners.
My, sort of, high level view on this (and perhaps a confirmation bias too) that:
the process you went through, the expense, the know-how-needed, the time it took and the results -- are simply not competitive
for online image distribution. Even with that second scanner with higher res.
I have had (not sure if it still works) Epson v700, I was ok with how it handled to scan my rare medium format shots, but was total pain and time
drain for 35mm. Every time, back then, when I enabled the ICE feature, it took ages.. and something did not work after my windows OS upgrades...
This was about 8-9 years ago or so.
I was hoping by now this whole area got significantly improved, but even with your skill and passion (which are way above average consumer) -- it does not look like we moved
far.
It seems that digital SLR acting as an enlarger is a small, but positive step for 35mm, but it does not appear significantly developed in automation/ease of use/accessibility, and it does not appear to be integrated with the rest of the film-based workflow (that is there is still 'send-to-a-lab' in the middle that adds time, expense and removes privacy).
So I am going to for a moment, reiterate in summary:
@Horatio posed that "Lack of affordable new cameras = death knell for film photography"
@Helge added that lack of easy to use, affordable digitization workflow is an significant additional problem.
For the market segment of newcomers to film, or, in general, people who are willing to spend their time/money/interests on image creation in film, rather than on subsequent digitization -- I think both propositions hold true. These are significant hinderances and threats to the future of film.
For film gear collectors, and folks that have (and like) their own dark room -- the above propositions do not hold true.
My, sort of, high level view on this (and perhaps a confirmation bias too) that:
the process you went through, the expense, the know-how-needed, the time it took and the results -- are simply not competitive
for online image distribution. Even with that second scanner with higher res.
I have had (not sure if it still works) Epson v700, I was ok with how it handled to scan my rare medium format shots, but was total pain and time
drain for 35mm. Every time, back then, when I enabled the ICE feature, it took ages.. and something did not work after my windows OS upgrades...
This was about 8-9 years ago or so.
I was hoping by now this whole area got significantly improved, but even with your skill and passion (which are way above average consumer) -- it does not look like we moved
far.
It seems that digital SLR acting as an enlarger is a small, but positive step for 35mm, but it does not appear significantly developed in automation/ease of use/accessibility, and it does not appear to be integrated with the rest of the film-based workflow (that is there is still 'send-to-a-lab' in the middle that adds time, expense and removes privacy).
So I am going to for a moment, reiterate in summary:
@Horatio posed that "Lack of affordable new cameras = death knell for film photography"
@Helge added that lack of easy to use, affordable digitization workflow is an significant additional problem.
For the market segment of newcomers to film, or, in general, people who are willing to spend their time/money/interests on image creation in film, rather than on subsequent digitization -- I think both propositions hold true. These are significant hinderances and threats to the future of film.
For film gear collectors, and folks that have (and like) their own dark room -- the above propositions do not hold true.
"For the market segment of newcomers to film, or, in general, people who are willing to spend their time/money/interests on image creation in film, rather than on subsequent digitization -- I think both propositions hold true. These are significant hinderances and threats to the future of film."
Not sure about that. I have restarted shooting film 2 years ago after a lull of several years. I send my film to The Darkroom, and get my film developed plus high resolution scans. If I want prints I can get silver emulsion prints too (I have a few and they turn out well). I am developing my own negative scanning methods (using a Durst slide duplicator and my Fuji XT-2), but it does take time, so I am not disagreeing that scanning AT HOME is not the easiest. On the other hand my daughter got an iPhone app and in 10 seconds converted a color neg of mine. I am hoping for better than that, but I may check it out at least to preview some old negatives. I may start developing B&W again at home, but not sure I want to production scan negatives.
Not sure about that. I have restarted shooting film 2 years ago after a lull of several years. I send my film to The Darkroom, and get my film developed plus high resolution scans. If I want prints I can get silver emulsion prints too (I have a few and they turn out well). I am developing my own negative scanning methods (using a Durst slide duplicator and my Fuji XT-2), but it does take time, so I am not disagreeing that scanning AT HOME is not the easiest. On the other hand my daughter got an iPhone app and in 10 seconds converted a color neg of mine. I am hoping for better than that, but I may check it out at least to preview some old negatives. I may start developing B&W again at home, but not sure I want to production scan negatives.
The important thing about film is that I get a negative. I can do a lot with a negative today and next year.
I can scan that negative on a cheap Epson flat bed scanner, play around with it and if I like what I see, I can print it on an inkjet printer. If resolution is an issue because of the size of the print then I can repeat the scan with something better and go from there.
or...
I can print it in the darkroom and play around with it there until I get something I like.
Of course resolution is rarely my primary limitation in producing an interesting print, whether I do it in the darkroom or use the computer. The problem almost always lies with the original composition. Does the image grab you and keep your interest or is it just bleh.
But there are always those who must have the highest possible resolution for their cherished scans so they spend the majority of their time and money on getting the resolution they think they need.
Whatever, I would rather spend the money on film so I can continue working on my composition.
If somehow I do get a really stunning image and I need it scanned I will almost certainly send it to a pro who can do what I can't with it. For that matter I'll probably send it to a professional printer to perform the necessary magic needed to catch the eye.
So far that has not been a problem.
I can scan that negative on a cheap Epson flat bed scanner, play around with it and if I like what I see, I can print it on an inkjet printer. If resolution is an issue because of the size of the print then I can repeat the scan with something better and go from there.
or...
I can print it in the darkroom and play around with it there until I get something I like.
Of course resolution is rarely my primary limitation in producing an interesting print, whether I do it in the darkroom or use the computer. The problem almost always lies with the original composition. Does the image grab you and keep your interest or is it just bleh.
But there are always those who must have the highest possible resolution for their cherished scans so they spend the majority of their time and money on getting the resolution they think they need.
Whatever, I would rather spend the money on film so I can continue working on my composition.
If somehow I do get a really stunning image and I need it scanned I will almost certainly send it to a pro who can do what I can't with it. For that matter I'll probably send it to a professional printer to perform the necessary magic needed to catch the eye.
So far that has not been a problem.
Yes, agreed there is so much character in the analog process of photography.
1st -- it is viewed as a 'truth serum' so to speak, where the 'negative does not lie'
2nd - as you said, the negative being unique, creates personalization/character value right there.
3rd - film (in close to ideal settings) captures color and lighting differentials & nuances across the image, that digital medium cannot.
4th - wet printing, when done by hand -- adds personal signature, adding to an image capture art-form
5th - film cameras & films, can be (and have been) made so robust and weather/environment tolerant
There is probably many more positive film and film cameras characteristics, that I missed in the above.
I think participating in this thread, I am trying to learn what prevents film from reaching wider audience,
that actually wants to use film and film cameras.
And wanted to offer whatever ideas I had given the OP's question/challenge.
I am going to probably repeat myself, but getting back to this after 9 years, I do not see that film digitization ecosystem
made any significant progress.
And unfortunately, I do not have any useful contribution/ideas, on how to make accelerate
that progress.
I learnt on this thread of new tools that help to use dslr/phone as enlargers. I think it is an improvement, but in terms of impact on film photography accessibility / popularity
this seems to be, sofar, very marginal.
I realize, however, that many contributors to this thread are content with the current state of things in this area.
1st -- it is viewed as a 'truth serum' so to speak, where the 'negative does not lie'
2nd - as you said, the negative being unique, creates personalization/character value right there.
3rd - film (in close to ideal settings) captures color and lighting differentials & nuances across the image, that digital medium cannot.
4th - wet printing, when done by hand -- adds personal signature, adding to an image capture art-form
5th - film cameras & films, can be (and have been) made so robust and weather/environment tolerant
There is probably many more positive film and film cameras characteristics, that I missed in the above.
I think participating in this thread, I am trying to learn what prevents film from reaching wider audience,
that actually wants to use film and film cameras.
And wanted to offer whatever ideas I had given the OP's question/challenge.
I am going to probably repeat myself, but getting back to this after 9 years, I do not see that film digitization ecosystem
made any significant progress.
And unfortunately, I do not have any useful contribution/ideas, on how to make accelerate
that progress.
I learnt on this thread of new tools that help to use dslr/phone as enlargers. I think it is an improvement, but in terms of impact on film photography accessibility / popularity
this seems to be, sofar, very marginal.
I realize, however, that many contributors to this thread are content with the current state of things in this area.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
https://www.etsy.com/shop/FrozenPhotonCameraCo
I'm not sure is $30 and 10¢/g for plastic and printed at home or at your local public library like mine is affordable, but. the more things change, the more they remain the same.
I'm not sure is $30 and 10¢/g for plastic and printed at home or at your local public library like mine is affordable, but. the more things change, the more they remain the same.
I really don’t see what you tried to prove or show in the above?
All your scans are obviously horrible, and it really isn’t clear whether it is due to the film, the scanner, missed focus, or all of the above.
There are loads of comparisons out there that show the big big difference between a well executed DSLR scan and a flatbed scan.
Last edited:
For what The Darkroom charges, compared to what it costs to process both B&W and C-41 at home, I doubt I'll send them any more film. Yes, it takes time to scan my negatives -- but this is a hobby. It's okay if it takes more of my time than paying someone to do the same job (maybe better, maybe not) on equipment that cost a hundred times what I have. MY images, MY process, MY walls and albums and web site (eventually).
I just read an article about that Kraken camera. Sure, $30 and whatever the filament costs, for a proven design -- and then another $400 or so for the required wide angle lens in shutter, and heaven only knows how much more for an accessory rangefinder like what I've seen pictured on the creator's own example. Now, the same kind of body in 6x4.5, 6x6, or 6x9, which could make good use of lenses liberated from otherwise unrepairable (badly bent struts or front standard, for instance) folding cameras from 60-90 years ago is quite another story -- those cameras, bought for the lens/shutter, are so cheap hardly anyone bothers to sell them -- a condition that could be subject to change if the lens and shutter started having enough demand to draw $20 to $50. That would be an affordable medium format camera.
@Helge There had been interest in seeing the difference between my old scanner and my "new" old one. Since you're apparently one of those people who only want to see perfection, why do you even read and post here? This forum is obviously deeply infested with imperfect amateurs, and merely opening this site must be physically painful for you.
I scan mainly to preview the potential of negatives for darkroom printing, which I'm not yet (quite) able to do again (and have never, to date, done in color). My Epson is new to me, and I'm still on the learning curve in terms of getting the best scans I can. I have no interest in DSLR or mirrorless beyond scanning my film, so it makes no sense for me to spend more and engage a steeper learning curve that doesn't fit my workspace as well as this Epson, for equipment I'll only use the same way.
What is perfection? The gold standard is an RA4 print with good technique. And by that standard your scans, or any other flatbed falls far short.
I don’t see where you get the painful part.
I just find it vexing that film is generally misrepresented as this “soulful”, “organic” circus pony, that might fall short in most common measures of image quality, but has so much “authenticity”.
And this idea stems exclusively from bad drugstore prints, bad homes scans and poor lab scans from uncalibrated outdated equipment.
The truth is that film is a highly developed and in most important ways an absolutely mind-blowingly good image capturing medium/sensor that really hasn’t been bested technically in any way other than perhaps low light capture (and even that could be contested).
Resolution and sharpness is important.
I know it’s fashionable (sour grapes?) to downplay or even be suspicious about any talk of resolution.
But the truth is at the end of the day it is one of the important IQ factors to the human visual system, however which way you turn it.
And yes, I read your post. That’s why I asked you about the point.
No pissing contest or veiled maliciousness involved (life’s too short to do that on forums too).
I was genuinely curious, because I felt it wasn’t clear at all.
I don’t see where you get the painful part.
I just find it vexing that film is generally misrepresented as this “soulful”, “organic” circus pony, that might fall short in most common measures of image quality, but has so much “authenticity”.
And this idea stems exclusively from bad drugstore prints, bad homes scans and poor lab scans from uncalibrated outdated equipment.
The truth is that film is a highly developed and in most important ways an absolutely mind-blowingly good image capturing medium/sensor that really hasn’t been bested technically in any way other than perhaps low light capture (and even that could be contested).
Resolution and sharpness is important.
I know it’s fashionable (sour grapes?) to downplay or even be suspicious about any talk of resolution.
But the truth is at the end of the day it is one of the important IQ factors to the human visual system, however which way you turn it.
And yes, I read your post. That’s why I asked you about the point.
No pissing contest or veiled maliciousness involved (life’s too short to do that on forums too).
I was genuinely curious, because I felt it wasn’t clear at all.
Okay. I'm sure it was clear to the person I posted it for. Aside from being no faster (in fact, scanning at higher resolution is slower, as well as the old USB connection being a good bit slower than the SCSI my Agfa ran on -- offset by ever-falling availability of SCSI cards to fit this year's and next years motherboards), this scanner is much better than the old -- better dynamic range, 4x resolution (= 16x pixel count from same negative, if wanted), handles silver-image negatives better, offers automatic dust removal in Vuescan, doesn't require pulling out and safely storing the bed glass to scan film, autofocus or manual focus adjustment, and is significantly smaller/lighter than the old one. The only thing I don't like by comparison, so far, is that there's no counterbalance spring in the lid, so it won't stay up unless it's tipped back against the hinge lock -- and that's just a matter of developing the habit of opening it all the way.
Obviously you missed this whirlpool of a thread:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...scan-vs-dslr-vs-epson-via-nick-carver.172770/
I’m not so sure he actually makes that good of a living off of his photography. He’s good at making it appear that way though.
He strikes me as just another Matt Day jam band.
Another YouTuber I have no inclination towards.
Ok, I had a bit of trouble finding the post you replied to.
The Epson better be better.
It’s seven years younger.
And it doesn’t come from an ailing company, that possibly at that point was already whoring it’s name out to random Chinese OEM manufacturers.
The Agfa was never a good scanner.
The Epson is still nothing but a digital contact sheet scanner though.
When I bought the Agfa (2003) it was the best scanner I could afford.
Same is true of the Epson I have now (4870). I'd love to have a 700/750 or 800/850, but they're hundreds of dollars out of my budget -- and according to you, are still crap.
Same is true of the Epson I have now (4870). I'd love to have a 700/750 or 800/850, but they're hundreds of dollars out of my budget -- and according to you, are still crap.
Please don’t continually draw the mildly offended card.
I have no general gripe with you, your opinions, thoughts or past and present economy.
You know as well as me, that price and quality sometimes do not follow each other.
And compared to the quality of a print or DSLR scan, or the output of dedicated 135 scanners, any flatbed ever is a huge compromise.
I think that's true. The home scanner market is stagnant and there is no reason to upgrade from your Epson because the tech hasn't evolved in a meaningful way. Your Epson is good for sharing MF images online and I'll add making reasonably sized prints from MF film too. But they're not exactly user friendly, they're bulky, and the main competition of scanning with digital cameras is expensive and cumbersome in its own ways.
The current marketplace doesn't really attract beginners that aren't interested in being hands-on, with the exception of Instax style products that anyone can use and enjoy. And attracting more "normal people" who want fun and don't want to get their hands dirty seems like a good idea to me.
Haters gona hate and it's obvious you hate this guy. No idea why. Sounds like a bit of jealousy?
No, why waste time and energy on that shit‽ I just avoid watching him.
And when people like that are brought up, I try to explain my stance, and why to avoid them.
| 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:  |