| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] |
Pam; I am a film horse from the old days. I have shot every size film from 35mm to 20x24. I have stuck with film and promised myself that I would not change. It is amazing how life changes. If I were starting out right now and were in the market for a new camera system I think I would really have to think long and hard about going to a film based system. Unless you are going to setup your own lab where you could control all your processing, or could depend on an outside lab to give you exactly the type of processing you want. I think the use of film has become a very expensive proposition. Yes, good digital cameras are still expensive, but so are conventional ones. It also seems to me that for the size images you are talking about printing the digital cameras could handle this very well. You are going to handle your output digitally anyway so why not start digitally from the beginning and eliminate the intermediate step of film. Look at the whole thing from a financial standpoint. A good film scanner will cost you over $1000.00. Film and processing cost X number of dollars each time you shoot. Plus all the extra equipment you would want for your cameras. You will be spending your money on two separate kinds of technology. Why not think seriously about only one. If history has any validity the future tells us that digital will only improve and slowly push film technology to a boutique market. I still am not ready to sell all my film based cameras, but as the digital side gets better, I think within this next year I will make the jump to all digital equipment. Just my thoughts on the subject. Jim Davis mailto:jarthurdavis@earthlink.net Pam Niedermayer wrote: > > Difficult to "just try" without the equipment, e.g. a 2700 > spi scanner (I haven't yet decided on which scanner to get, > only have an old 300 spi Microtek). Also, I'd really like to > know how to do this inhouse, as my primary concern is B&W on > the 3000 using quad tones, many to be used as interpositives > and internegatives for platinum contact printing. If I were > to go the Lightjet route, may as well have the vendor do the > scanning, too, especially for 35 mm color. Most of my 35mm > stuff is snapshots, not really a serious concern; but I > figure that if you, Jim and others can get from 35mm to > 16X20, it will be a breeze for my existing 6X6 and soon to > produce 4X5 stuff, that that knowledge will help me decide > what scanner to get, etc. > > Pam > > rafeb wrote: > > > > At 06:36 PM 1/23/00 -0600, Pam wrote: > > > > >Jim, what do you do to make this possible? Very high res > > >scanner? Interpolation in scanner? In Photoshop? > > > > Umm, I'm not Jim, but I'll step in and say: > > just try it, Pam. You might be pleasantly > > surprised. I'm using a 2700 dpi film > > scanner -- no great shakes, by current > > standards. > > > > Upsampled to 305 dpi, and sent the file > > to Foto-1 in Michigan for output to a > > Cymbolics Lightjet. Nice! (Upsampled > > only because that's what the lab wants; > > 305 dpi is apparently the "native" > > resolution of the Lightjet printer.) > > > > Around $35 for a 17x22" print on real > > photo paper; the 2nd print from the > > same file is about 1/2 that price. > > > > In terms of resolution and fine detail, > > it beats a print from a 3000, hands-down. > > > > rafe b. > > > > - > > Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use > > accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions. > > -- > Pamela G. Niedermayer > Pinehill Softworks Inc. > 1221 S. Congress Ave., #1225 > Austin, TX 78704 > 512-416-1141 > 512-416-1440 fax > http://www.pinehill.com > - > Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use > accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions. - Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users
|