View Full Version : Scanning Film - Waste Of Time?
photogdave
03-13-2009, 13:36
Here's what our own Dante Stella thinks on the matter:
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/outsource.html
Although I don't have the technical knowledge Dante has, I tend to disagree with his points about poor image quality and how time consuming it is.
How do the rest of you feel?
mabelsound
03-13-2009, 13:41
I find it fast (now that I can do whole rolls with the 5000ED), fun, and absorbing. And film still looks really cool, even scanned.
I love DS's site. I could read it all day...
Scanning old black & white negatives is indeed dust hell. However, my scanning process now rocks! I take the film from the dyer, load it up in the 5000 uncut, and scan away. No dust, and no spotting. Awesome!
I had the pleasure of using a Coolscan 5000ED awhile back and I loved it! I don't think scanning is a waste of time; however, I do think that scanner technology is advancing in leaps and bounds as quickly as digital cameras, so I may be a little put-off in buying one because the scanner itself becomes obsolete pretty quickly, just as a new digital camera would.
Chriscrawfordphoto
03-13-2009, 14:22
I totally disagree. Scanning is no more time consuming than darkroom printing and gives you a file you can make identical prints from years later. I scanned my backlog of over 2000 rolls, which I finished a couple yrs ago. It took 5 years doing it in my spare time. I'm young, I have lots of time. The quality, if you have a GOOD scanner, is magnificent. I see no difference from darkroom prints in my prints from scnned negs done on my Nikon LS-8000ED. I use a glass carrier and never have dust issues. If he does, he needs to clean his house.
I had some mega dust issues. After building a drying cabinet, thankfully those are over! Of course, I also own two hairy dogs and heat my house with a woodstove in the winter.
I have the Coolscan 5000 with both slide feeder and the 40-frame strip film feeder, and I agree with Dante. The scan speed is not the main factor, if you can afford Nikon's extortionate prices for the LS-5000 and its accessories - just pop in the strip film or stack of slides, set it going and a couple of hours later it's done. No, the hard part is sorting through the film. I would count at least 5 minutes per frame.
My father gave me a stack of slides from my childhood, most are Kodachromes. I am planning on batch-scanning them for backup and then handing them over to ScanCafe to get them in usable shape.
It depends on your workflow. I develop my film, I dry the film, and I put the film in the scanner. I then cut & sleeve the negatives and put a note in the top of the sleeve with the date, scan numbers and how I developed the film. With respect to the cost, I don't think the 5000 is that expensive when I compare it to the cost of my cameras, and lenses. I payed $2500 for my first Canon 5d some time ago, and that is just a camera body. And I later dropped that in the ocean, and bought another! I'm highly unlikely to drop the 5000 in the ocean!
sojournerphoto
03-13-2009, 14:55
It depends on your workflow. I develop my film, I dry the film, and I put the film in the scanner. I then cut & sleeve the negatives and put a note in the top of the sleeve with the date, scan numbers and how I developed the film. With respect to the cost, I don't think the 5000 is that expensive when I compare it to the cost of my cameras, and lenses. I payed $2500 for my first Canon 5d some time ago, and that is just a camera body. And I later dropped that in the ocean, and bought another! I'm highly unlikely to drop the 5000 in the ocean!
My film workflow is identical, except that if there is a frame I really want to get right I may scan it again using the FH3 later, but for most purposes (i.e. small prints) the SA30 adaptor is great in the 5000. My biggest issue is that I get too many frames on 35mm, but am not yet ready to stump up for an LS9000.
As to cost, an LS9000 and Mamiya 7 is no more than a 1Ds3 iirc. Far from cheap, but out there in quite reasonable numbers. and an Ikon and LS5000 can be had for what I paid for my old 5D at the time.
Mike
first off, if you get proof prints with your film development there is no reason to scan every image, just the very best... so time is not a problem. also, I can't understand why dante is suggesting getting lower resolution scans to avoid grain aliasing, better to scan at a higher resolution and down sample. I prefer BW400CN scans to converted digital... so it is worth it to me. Yes, touching up dust from silver negs is a pain in the butt.
"put-off in buying one because the scanner itself becomes obsolete pretty quickly..."
Huh? Who's putting out new film scanners? All I see is prosumer film scanners being discontinued with no replacement being offered. It's probably in Nikon's interest to kill off all their film scanners since they make so much more money off digital cameras.
mabelsound
03-13-2009, 15:20
Yeah, I don't think there are going to be new film scanners, unfortunately.
Process is pleasure for me, usually. It feels good to have to go through the steps. If I had a backlog to scan, though, it would get old fast.
A good scanner is worth scanning film with. A crappy one makes it a waste, maybe.
He raises some good points on both sides and sticks with logic, but I disagree with Mr. Stella's conclusions. It's like a carefully structured defense of his own workflow. I like his pictures and website, so I don't think his workflow needs defending.
Obviously he does, so I have to ask, if he truly believes it a waste to shoot film just to scan, why is it so important to tell everyone? Why is he trying to convince me?
And when discussing the future of film, he mentions closing camera stores and product availability, but ignores new products like film and film cameras What's that about? Ignorance or selective memory?
It's nice that he also leaves out the main reasons people do this - convenience and to get the look of film.
Nice rah-rah advert for digital, but strange to see it on his site. He's basically trying to tell an entire market of film users that they are wasting their time and their pictures will never look very good. Insecure much, Dante?
Faintandfuzzy
03-13-2009, 15:27
What a complete load of fluff. Must be a slow day in the blogsphere.
mabelsound
03-13-2009, 15:32
Guys, I think you need to take a step back and read some more of DS's writing. He gets ideas and throws them out there. Contradicting himself is part of the program. His essays are just good explorations of technical and artistic issues that most of us think about for a few minutes and dismiss. He really digs into them, and that's good. It doesn't matter if he's right.
He isn't trying to convince you of anything, I don't think. He's just thinking out loud, very skillfully I believe.
I think one of the problems with scanning is the perception that it's a makeshift subsitute for the conventional darkroom process ... as in some people's minds digital photography is a poor substitute for film photography. Scanning is it's own expression of the negative's stored information and if the end product is a print that looks a little different to a wet print ... so be it ... go with it!
Scanners do weird things occasionally that are all their own craziness ... a while a go I developed some under exposed HP5 in cafenol and scanned the negatives in 24 bit colour and got some very unusual results caused by colour casts. When digitally printed on art quality matt paper these scans produced something that could not be easily duplicated in a conventional darkroom process. This was when I realised that the scanning process could be used to actually create something rather than just be a means to convert an analogue image to a digital file.
I agree totally with what Chris has said here.
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g196/wheelie52/RFF%20Storage/cafenol_14.jpg
Oh, he's absolutely right. Another article on his site led to my purchasing a Pakon high-speed scanner; with this toy there's a prayer I can get my 30+ years of 35mm into a usable state fast enough to share and enjoy it all (apologies to Douglas Adams...the words just came out that way).
New film work (mostly 120) I get scanned at processing time by NCPS. Expensive but the results are astonishingly good and I don't have to spend hours doing it myself; I can hold my Photoshop time down to the few images that are really worth the effort.
mabelsound
03-13-2009, 15:42
Why do SOME people insist on ramming it down our throats that film is dead and scanning is wrong? This supercilious whining is getting really boring. It sounds so much like they have a vested interest in getting us to buy new gear, or are they just trying to rationalise their own 'forced' upgrades?
It also reminds of a skiing metaphor, which seems to come in handy around here. The second wave of snowboarders were always bleating about the death of skiing. Not the first wave who were mostly professional, expert, hard core riders, but the wannabes who had a massive chip on their shoulder and seemed to actually want to see the end of skiing.
P.S. I just had a good look through this clown's pics before posting. Who would post images full of dust, scratches and banding?
Journeyman, go read a dozen more of Dante Stella's articles. He is intelligent, thoughtful, a film and film-camera enthusiast, and a fine photographer, as well as a member of this forum. The idea that he's a whiner, wannabe, or clown is ridiculous. Elsewhere on his site you'll find articles that question the need for new gear, as well. He's playing devil's advocate.
A guy posting an essay on his own website, which you are not obliged to seek out or read, is not ramming anything down your throat. Go write your own rebuttal on your own website.
mabelsound
03-13-2009, 15:43
BTW Keith, wild picture there. I like it.
photogdave
03-13-2009, 15:45
P.S. I just had a good look through this clown's pics before posting. Who would post images full of dust, scratches and banding?
No need for name-calling. DS is a well-respected member here, and of the photographic community in general. We can agree or disagree with him but we should do it with respect.
felix5616
03-13-2009, 15:51
One of the big advantages for shooting film and scanning is for wide and ultra wide angle shooting. Digital sensors are nowhere near as good as film with ultra wide angle lenses. Scanning is time consuming, but the results for certain types of shooting are worth it. I shoot 6x24 film for which there are no digital backs, even stitching would take longer than scanning. I shot a canon 1DSII and for certain type of shooting it was an advantage. I've scanned on a Nikon coolscan 9000, epson V750Pro and 2 ICG drum scanners. I now scan on a Creo/Kodak IQ3 smart scanner, both dry and wet scanning. I can combine any and all formats, scan a full 5000dpi and the results are great. The only better output was the ICG drum scanner, which i regret selling. The support for drum scanners will get progressively more difficult and SCSI devices are hard to use with newer computers, that is why i switched to the creo scanner. I have not been impressed with digital, but i do not shoot for a living.
antiquark
03-13-2009, 15:56
Yeah, I don't think there are going to be new film scanners, unfortunately
There are probably a billion negatives sitting in shoeboxes, I suspect that the film scanner business has some life in it yet.
climbing_vine
03-13-2009, 16:01
Here's what our own Dante Stella thinks on the matter:
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/outsource.html
Although I don't have the technical knowledge Dante has, I tend to disagree with his points about poor image quality and how time consuming it is.
How do the rest of you feel?
I think part of the problem with this discussion is your framing here, Dave.
He doesn't precisely argue that "scanning film is a waste of time." He says:
Doing this on a massive and systematic basis will waste a lot of your time scanning a lot of pictures that had they been printed as 4x6 pictures, you would have thrown them away.
and this, it seems, is a pretty inarguable point, much more limited in context than what you said. If this qualifier *doesn't* apply to you for some reason, then it's not a waste of time.
photogdave
03-13-2009, 16:05
Ahhh...semantics!
mabelsound
03-13-2009, 16:17
Point taken re the language. Sorry if I offended anyone.
No trouble. Everything in context!
...and this, it seems, is a pretty inarguable point, much more limited in context than what you said. If this qualifier *doesn't* apply to you for some reason, then it's not a waste of time.
So where can I get 4x6 of my black and whites printed at a reasonable cost?
well, if you shoot BW400CN or XP-2 Super... anywhere! :)
(and they both really do scan better than anything else).
So where can I get 4x6 of my black and whites printed at a reasonable cost?
climbing_vine
03-13-2009, 19:18
So where can I get 4x6 of my black and whites printed at a reasonable cost?
Hrm?
If your point is that you print enough 4x6 black and whites that it makes more sense for you to buy quality digital printing equipment and do it yourself than have them printed, then (again) he wasn't talking about you. That paragraph specifically addresses the idea of scanning everything when you'll never care to look at most of it again. That has nothing to do with the scenario you're talking about, if I understand your Socratic attempt. ;)
but by this time, no one really cares that much... have the people just throw out their negatives after looking at the prints.
There are probably a billion negatives sitting in shoeboxes, I suspect that the film scanner business has some life in it yet.
Hrm?
If your point is that you print enough 4x6 black and whites that it makes more sense for you to buy quality digital printing equipment and do it yourself ...
My point is that I cannot commercially print my black and white silver (not that C41 black and white crap) at all. There are no processors around here that will do it, and in my darkroom it takes forever. In contrast, sticking a roll of film in my scanner, pressing "scan" and coming back in 45 minutes later is not time consuming at all!
Dante_Stella
03-13-2009, 20:10
Interesting... I come back from an opening, finish doing the dishes, and see that someone on rangefinderforum has decided that "scanning is a waste of time." Imagine my surprise when I found out it apparently was me!
I did not think that was at all the point of that article. In fact, I'm pretty sure it said that it was a good idea to scan your old stuff (or more accurately, have it scanned) but a questionable one to forego normal processing and printing of 35mm film for scanning, especially if your main use is proof prints. Your energy is better directed to detailed scanning of a very small number of frames.
Because someone brought up defending workflows, my workflow is driven by what I intend to do with the pictures.
For stuff that gets printed onto b/w paper, I use a Durst AC800 enlarger with an AN glass carrier. It's very fast and because it has a built-in densitometer, it gets the exposure 90% right on the first try. That means just checking the contrast with RC or agonizing over developing time/exposure combinations with fixed-grade fiber.
If I want prints from 35mm color film, I take the film to a Frontier machine and have everything printed, bring the negatives back in a long glassine, and throw them in my F235 to make scans for computer use. That scanning takes all of 3 minutes.
For the Noblex or for making web copies of medium format, I use a Sprintscan 120 (and where critical, its glass carrier).
Everything electronic gets sorted and worked over on Lightroom on a Mac Pro.I don't have any vested interest in selling anything. I have digital cameras and analog ones. I shoot one until I pile up enough pictures to develop (or correct) and then switch to the other. I do hope to finish scanning my 120 negatives before they stop making (affordable and good) conventional b/w paper.
And I frankly don't understand the extreme reactions and ad hominem comments. No one is "ramming [anything] down [anyone's] throat," although I can understand, seeing such a reaction, that other people are more emotionally involved. Nothing wrong with that; it's just not how I approach photography. I thought it was supposed to be enjoyable.
Regards,
Dante
P.S. Here is a recently-completed set of 120 scans from Tri-X. I'm sure there is a dust speck here or there. These are for PC gamma, which I think everyone is using now.
http://dantestella.smugmug.com/gallery/7592904_hVetu#P-1-16
charjohncarter
03-13-2009, 20:32
Or you could do it my way, with total control of the histogram:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3175/2860872771_b9d6ababfe.jpg?v=0
charjohncarter
03-13-2009, 20:36
A recent shot done this way (of course it was a Brownie Hawkeye flipped lens):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3608/3346248062_100461deba.jpg?v=1236906724
And one done this way from a Rolleiflex:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3582/3343763941_c16d4d1f01.jpg?v=0
charjohncarter
03-13-2009, 20:39
Scanning Tech is Xerox tech, so there are better ways, but scanning producers will not in the long run try to produce a very high quality scanner. (Drum scanners are now not available)
well, geez, why don't you tell how your really feel? :)
...not that C41 black and white crap...
!
Dante_Stella
03-13-2009, 21:01
It's not the first time I've heard of someone doing this, but this is definitely the most stylish setup I've seen. I dig the plexiglas (lexan?) mounts for everything.
Or you could do it my way, with total control of the histogram:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3175/2860872771_b9d6ababfe.jpg?v=0
mabelsound
03-14-2009, 05:41
Hey John, you've shown this "scanning" setup in the past, but could you give us the full breakdown on what everything is and how you put it together? I gave up 120 because of scanning--I invested in the 5000ED and decided to put it behind me--but shooting scans with a DSLR and macro lens, both of which I already own, might give me a way back in someday.
Bob Michaels
03-14-2009, 05:51
i read Dante's article and have to agree with it's basic tenant. I think he summed everything up very well in his conclusion: "Sorry to say that there is no easy answer to this except that scanning can be fast, cheap or good - and that you can choose any two out of those three."
There is a solution. Not easy to learn, but very effective. editing Face reality, none of us shoot over 100 good photos a year. Winogrand did not. HCB did not. Ansel did not. Friedlander does not. If we edit out those that are not really good, the problem goes away. I am not saying we should never save more than 100 photos per year, but it should be some small reasonable number.
Editing is not easy. In fact it is downright hard. I certainly have not mastered it. But it is critical in the process of developing our ability. I am not referring to simply deleting those photos that are not focused or exposed properly. I mean identifying those that are really good from those that are just OK. Then you determine why and try to emphasize those factors. Without editing we will simply shoot thousands of photos this year that are no better than what we did last year or the years before that.
So the entire bulk scanning issue is really not a problem at all. It is simply another negative side effect of our not being able to sort out what is worthwhile saving.
And for those of you who believe that you really need to save 97 photos from little Susie's party "because she only will turn 3 years old one time" or must have 1,263 photos from your vacation because "xxxxx is such a scenic place", take several giant steps back and think long term.
david.elliott
03-14-2009, 06:03
Face reality, none of us shoot over 100 good photos a year.
.....
I am not saying we should never save more than 100 photos per year, but it should be some small reasonable number.
.....
And for those of you who believe that you really need to save 97 photos from little Susie's party "because she only will turn 3 years old one time" or must have 1,263 photos from your vacation because "xxxxx is such a scenic place", take several giant steps back and think long term.
Sometimes it is not the "good" photos that mean the most to me and my family.
And in the sad case where someone is lost, I would rather have 100+ less-than-good photos (from a technical / artistic standpoint) of them than only 10 good ones.
I save every photo I take that turns out reasonably well. So long as the composition is okay and the exposure is okay, I save it. That does not mean I share it with anybody, but I have it saved.
The number of photos I share with people is very small. But, "taking several steps back and thinking long term," I see no reason not to save the others.
'Dante' sounds like one of those people who is never bl**dy happy. Scanners are fine... relax.
charjohncarter
03-14-2009, 09:06
Mabelsound and Dante, that photo is for my 35mm setup. I have a custom diffuser plate that will take 120 (6x6, 6x7). I don't have a 4x5 camera but I do some of my friends with another diffuser plate. This thing was easy to build, the only thing that isn't Plexiglass is the metal rod that I got at a local hardware store. The DSLR is a Pentax DL, I have a 60's macro lens (M42)(adapter) and then a 60's Pentax Slide copier. The light is one of those green lamps, but I use a flash for all color work. The post work is convert from RAW, invert negative, with color; auto levels, but with B&W; I manually adjust the levels, that's it. At first I had trouble getting the histogram on the camera where I wanted it. My brain wasn't thinking in reverse, now I have it.
Several mentions of the Nikon Coolscans, I believe the difference between the 5000 and 4000 is that the 4000 was firewire?
Does either USB or Firewire offer any advantge other than convenience?
Have any of you modified the original low cost strip feeder to take full rolls, (supposed to be a simple bridging of two solder joints that resets the counter to take up to 38 ex)?
A used 4000 or 5000 coolscan with a modified strip feeder might offer a very reasonable approach to quality scans that do not eat so much time as you can set it up and go to dinner, to return to a job done? At the cost I have seen some of the 4000's, you might afford several, and have dualing scanners?
Nikon has supported these scanners, and I believe Vuescan offers an alternate software, I am not so tech savy as to have a sound opinion about which is better, but if all the conbinations fall in to place, or is someone here slips me the crib sheet, it might make it very convenient to scan rolls of film.
The Slide feeder is great when it works, but can take some fiddling and attention. I transferred most of my slides to a hard drive, and a back up, though I suspect a DVD might be another good backup?
My friend Zuzana loves her Coolscan 9000, have no idea if it does full rolls easily.
Regards, John
mabelsound
03-14-2009, 09:44
Have any of you modified the original low cost strip feeder to take full rolls, (supposed to be a simple bridging of two solder joints that resets the counter to take up to 38 ex)?
Absolutely. Here's a tutorial:
http://www.jrobertlennon.com/articles/vuescancoolscan/
You don't even need to open the thing up.
robert blu
03-14-2009, 10:14
in the beginning I was finding scanning a boring activity, necessary but boring. After a while I realize it is a part of the process. I got used to it, put some music on and start to work, in relax. Of course as an amateur I do not nedd to finish a work on a fixed date and this helps in being relaxed. I'm satisfied from results from my 5000 ed.
robert
mabelsound
03-14-2009, 10:16
I have a 60's macro lens (M42)(adapter) and then a 60's Pentax Slide copier.
Excellent, those are pretty plentiful online, and I have Pentax gear as well. They will copy negatives as well as slides?
Dante_Stella-
First paragraph: "There are two reasons to scan film. One is that you have old negatives that you want to put on your computer to manipulate, put on facebook, email, print, etc. Another reason is that you might not want to admit to yourself that you have really disengaged from film photography but want to keep a bunch of negatives around "just in case.""
Um, how about because you want to share the shots you took last night with your friends? Or because it gives you another option besides wet printing?
Don't get me wrong, I read your site because I like your photography and I like to read what you have to say. I thought your recent post was odd, considering. I mean, you just posted scans from film. So were these old negatives or are you disengaging on us? :)
Like I said, you mention pros and cons, I just disagree with your conclusions. And so apparently do you. That's why I thought it was odd.
And this whole "film is disappearing" vibe gets real old. Some of us have been hearing it for a decade or more, yet haven't had any problem finding the stuff. At what point are people who use film going to stop with the "sky is falling" nonsense?
Film isn't disappearing; it's just going through a transition from mass-market to enthusiast-market, like LP records. That means "easy" film work (Frontier machines everywhere, an array of film types available at the drug store, etc) is going to be a thing of the past and soon. Costco just stopped selling Fuji Superia; that starts the countdown for the disappearance of their minilabs. "Easy" is going away. Committed film users will have no trouble getting what they need, but just like LPs there will be a period when costs and hassles will increase exponentially. So what? Are you in or are you out?
crappy machine proofs are fine for your shoebox... but even when someone is gone, having a few really superb enlargements means more than the shoebox... except maybe the procedure of going through the shoebox and the memories that go along with it...
I agree with Bob entirely.
Sometimes it is not the "good" photos that mean the most to me and my family.
And in the sad case where someone is lost, I would rather have 100+ less-than-good photos (from a technical / artistic standpoint) of them than only 10 good ones.
I save every photo I take that turns out reasonably well. So long as the composition is okay and the exposure is okay, I save it. That does not mean I share it with anybody, but I have it saved.
The number of photos I share with people is very small. But, "taking several steps back and thinking long term," I see no reason not to save the others.
david.elliott
03-14-2009, 11:36
crappy machine proofs are fine for your shoebox... but even when someone is gone, having a few really superb enlargements means more than the shoebox... except maybe the procedure of going through the shoebox and the memories that go along with it...
I agree with Bob entirely.
Who said anything about crappy machine proofs and shoeboxes?
Film isn't disappearing; it's just going through a transition from mass-market to enthusiast-market, like LP records. That means "easy" film work (Frontier machines everywhere, an array of film types available at the drug store, etc) is going to be a thing of the past and soon. Costco just stopped selling Fuji Superia; that starts the countdown for the disappearance of their minilabs. "Easy" is going away. Committed film users will have no trouble getting what they need, but just like LPs there will be a period when costs and hassles will increase exponentially. So what? Are you in or are you out?
Costco stopped selling multi-roll packs of a single cheap film - big deal. I'm not the only one who doesn't like Superia very much, apparently.
Actually go to a record store and price the things compared to CD's, and *then* tell me about supposed exponential costs :/ Records and CD's cost roughly the same around here, and even Best Buy is selling records. There are rumblings in our local music industry about a plan to open a record-making plant locally due to the level of demand. LP's are certainly not dead or gone, and most definitely don't come with some huge price penalty.
Ritz Camera went into bankruptcy protection because they idiotically bought an upside-down competitor. Has nothing to do with film, and since most Ritz stores were in malls rather than neighborhoods, there will be little impact on a person's ability to get film processed. Drug stores all over the US do it every day, the closing of half the Ritz chain won't affect that.
What is this fetish with forecasting the end of the world? I ALREADY buy my film and supplies at a specialty camera shop. I shoot traditional B&W. You know, the stuff that was "obselete" in the 50's? It's been a long time since your corner druggist processed silver-based films, and yet somehow it is still cheap, easy to get, and easy to use. To read some people's comments, that isn't possible. Yet there it is.
Some of you need to take a look outside the window and realize that PopPhoto is not the whole world. It's an ad-driven magazine that sells cameras and gear for the manufacturers. They aren't serving photographers in any way nor are they reporting the state of the world of photography.
"Fetish for forecasting the end of the world?"
You totally missed my point. What did new LPs cost in 1995-2000? And how available were they?
And I thought I was being reassuring.
historicist
03-14-2009, 12:17
I don't know how things are in the US, but in Europe new records are getting pretty expensive. I gave up collecting records for a year or two, because it is a seriously expensive hobby - my record collection is easily worth a noctilux but at £10 a time you don't notice it so much - and consumes a lot of time, but recently got a new hifi and started again.
Second hand is still the same as before, which is great because I mostly buy old stuff, but LPs from new bands are much more than they used to be. The CD will be €10-15, but the 'special edition' LP €25 and they press relatively few, so if you don't hear about some great new record straight away, it's a nightmare tracking a copy down.
€10-15 is what CD's cost here. I paid $18 brand new for a Rolling Stones CD from the early '70's last summer. If I bought a whole stack at a time, CD's would be quite expensive, despite being mainstream. The point is that despite not being mainstream, vinyl records are available and don't carry any exponential cost increases over CD's.
Just as film is available and doesn't carry any exponential cost increase despite not being as ubiquitous as it used to be. I guess if one is convinced the sky is falling, rational thought and facts won't matter. But I'm getting tired of hearing/reading the same BS over and over.
photogdave
03-14-2009, 12:48
I frequent three or four record local stores here. Average price is about $25 for new LPs. I tend to pick up quite a few brand new pressing for under $20. There are some great special editions on 180g vinyl that often include free MP3 downloads for the entire album and sometimes even a full length CD for $30-40.
Relatively speaking, records have never been cheaper. Film prices haven't really increased all that much in the last 10 years either.
"The point is that despite not being mainstream, vinyl records are available and don't carry any exponential cost increases over CD's. "
I give up.
historicist
03-14-2009, 13:12
Hmm, depends, old stuff is still cheap, unless it is rare in which case it is superexpensive as it always has been. I got put off record collecting around the point that having a 7" I didn't already have would cost £10-20, which was exactly the same point at which it became possible to download even rare stuff for free.
But still there's something about records and old cameras that keeps me coming back...
Roger Hicks
03-14-2009, 13:16
A constant subtext here is "if you can't see the difference between wet prints and ink-jets, maybe you're a lousy photographer." I've been guilty of it myself.
The mirror image of this is, "if you can't see the difference between wet prints and ink-jets, maybe you don't know how to use an inkjet printer." Maybe I don't.
And in between the two is, "if you can't see the difference between wet prints and ink-jets, maybe it doesn't matter for your subjects and your style of photography."
But I'd certainly agree that most of us value our labour too cheap. Because there are no [marginal, out of pocket] expenses in scanning, there's a temptation to scan pics that really don't warrant keeping, no matter how you define 'warrant keeping'. Which I think may have been Dante Stella's point.
Tashi delek.
Roger
mabelsound
03-14-2009, 13:37
I'm one of those insane people who paid $80 for the vinyl package of last year's Radiohead record that they were giving away the download of for free.
Something tells me that in forty years I'll be driving 200 miles to New York to spend twenty bucks a roll on Tri-X.
historicist
03-14-2009, 13:46
Ha, you and me too!
I look at pictures taken with a D700 or D3 and they seem just as good as mine taken with a Rolleiflex or Leica and scanned on a good scanner, but I would still rather have an old camera...
Same with vinyl.
...
Have any of you modified the original low cost strip feeder to take full rolls, (supposed to be a simple bridging of two solder joints that resets the counter to take up to 38 ex)?
...
I modified mine. All I did was put a piece of thin gauge wire across the two contacts and then places a piece of tape over the wire to secure it. Works perfectly.
Costco stopped selling multi-roll packs of a single cheap film - big deal. I'm not the only one who doesn't like Superia very much, apparently.
...
Just a small correction. That should read "your local costco"... my local costco still sells and develops film.
amateriat
03-14-2009, 14:30
Oh. Goodness.
Dante: I love you, man, and this won't be the first time I've disagreed wildly with something you've written, which is cool: I still regard you and your site as a solid source of information. And, I understand that in this case you are generally airing your opinion, which I'm always game to hear.
However...
- I've been scanning my film for something like a decade now, and even the worst scanner I had could wring out detail in the negative or slide that would put many a wet darkroom practicioner to shame (especially if we're talking color). Admittedly, all the scanners I've owned, from my first (used) Nikon LS-10 to my current Minolta DS 5400, were at least "pretty good."
- I have the option of either scanning and printing digitally or printing traditionally via the wet darkroom, or something in between. Options are always good.
- Shooting digital: I do that from time to time, but I really have a bug up my ass about just about all dSLRs: the "good" ones are oversized and ergonomically overwrought; the small ones are technically undernourished, crop-factored, and, too often, still ergonomically overwrought.
- Of course, I tend to dislike shooting with any SLR now, digital or film. Which leaves...
- The digital rangefinders. Don't like any of the existing ones. I grok my Hexars lots, of course.
So, no, scanning film isn't a waste of time (not any more than developing a "fast" RAW workflow for dealing with stuff I shoot with the Olympus C-8080...that's at least as time-consuming for me, if not moreso). In the end, it's up to the individual. There are those here who would rather watch paint dry than scan another strip of film again, and I respect that POV. This isn't a problem for me, however.
- Barrett
Pickett Wilson
03-14-2009, 15:32
I started a major scanning effort a number of years ago to convert all my old negatives to digital files, but it eventually occurred to me that it was a waste of time. Nobody after I'm gone is going to care crap about terabytes of digital files stored on whatever the flavor of the day media is at that time. Certainly aren't going to ever look at them. So I gave up the scanning stuff except for a frame or two from each roll I shoot that currently amuses me.
Unless we're famous, I don't think the "quality" of the scans will matter one iota because the scans will just be tossed, anyway.
But even the V500 does pretty darn good with scans, likely as good as most of us will ever need.
mabelsound
03-14-2009, 15:54
I modified mine. All I did was put a piece of thin gauge wire across the two contacts and then places a piece of tape over the wire to secure it. Works perfectly.
Exactly:
http://www.jrobertlennon.com/articles/vuescancoolscan/jumper.jpg
charjohncarter
03-15-2009, 10:57
Mabelsound, Yes, both negatives and slides.
I totally disagree. Scanning is no more time consuming than darkroom printing and gives you a file you can make identical prints from years later. I scanned my backlog of over 2000 rolls, which I finished a couple yrs ago. It took 5 years doing it in my spare time. I'm young, I have lots of time. The quality, if you have a GOOD scanner, is magnificent. I see no difference from darkroom prints in my prints from scnned negs done on my Nikon LS-8000ED. I use a glass carrier and never have dust issues. If he does, he needs to clean his house.
no chemicals involved, no waste of water not to mention a scanner takes less space than a darkroom.
although time spent in a darkroom is SWEEET.
Glad to hear the modification works, I have not used mine yet, but my processor is very happy, certainly drives down the cost of scans made at time of processing.
Any real feelings about whether to stick with Nikon's software or go with VueScan?
Would like to ease my transition to digital by keeping the option of shooting film, doing hopefully minor Photoshop corrections, and letting someone else do the RA4 prints.
I just put up some scans from XP2 shot in Mexico, but I think they mistakenly turned off the Digital ICE.
That said, I can shoot digital, or I can shoot some of the vintage equipment and have direct RA4 results, or scans. I shot a roll of XP2 to test the Leica next to my name, and it shoots just fine. Scanning film is a cake and eat it solution? The Coolscan 4000 sometimes is about at give away prices.
Regards, John
I use nikon scan for color, vuescan for black and white. I find nikonscan for black and white keeps blowing the whites.
I use nikon scan for color, vuescan for black and white. I find nikonscan for black and white keeps blowing the whites.
Does it make any difference if it is chromogenic or silver? John
For black and white I only use silver, so I don't know.
Thanks, I have looked at both, but am in Tech Limbo as I sort out my computer problems. John
snausages
03-17-2009, 14:56
I've just begun to do my own scanning, but it seems extremely exciting to be able to have a 100MB file of a MF slide. It can easily take an hour to scan and process one frame, but it seems worth it to have this kind of control over and archiving of your own media. I've been really happy with the initial results, at least in color, where dust issues aren't as painful...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3582/3363800548_14666c3eae.jpg
snausages
03-17-2009, 16:43
Or...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3591/3364362106_41bd8d41c9_o.jpg
I really like the shot with the sheet & cat. Very beautiful whites.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.