Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,856   Posts: 1,582,981   Online: 1033
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38
  1. #21
    kwmullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Denton, TX, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    889
    Images
    16
    oh bother.
    Last edited by kwmullet; 06-20-2006 at 05:46 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Reason: should have known better than to think there was any way to avoid an analog/digital religious hissy fit in response to having an opinion one way or another. ugh.

  2. #22
    donbga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,084
    Quote Originally Posted by kwmullet

    • In all other areas, the highest-end scanner in the world will never touch the quality available from the lowliest student enlarger.


    Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! What else can I say.
    Don Bryant

  3. #23
    battra92's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by donbga
    Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! What else can I say.
    Some people don't want to learn the other way?

    Personally I hate spending time in a darkroom. It's hot, stuffy and boring. So I got a scanner and scan my film negs and sit in front of a computer that is tedious, distracting and I don't get a print until I send it to Adorama to print it for me. I can get it made into a silver print on Ilford B&W paper should I choose. It's called picking your methods.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    The only issue I have with choosing a scanner or an enlarger is that in terms of slides I have real trouble finding any direct positive materials such as Ilford in my market. Neither Kodak or Fuji make internegative film. It seems to me that a digital system, scanner and high end printer wins by default. I had a local pro lab print some 33mm slides so I could compare them analog prints I made and I still feel that the analog prints I made 10 years ago are better than the new digital prints.

  5. #25
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    I think you would be better served with the enlarger. What you learn in the darkroom will carry through should you ever find the need to use a digital negative. $1800 is also very expensive for a scanner, a good Nikon scanner is only about $900 - I have a new Minolta Dimage Scan II Elite, which is a fantastic 35mm scanner but no longer made.

    If you are doing B&W, you would be better served sticking with an enlarger. When doing color, you could go either way, depending upon your situation. You can easily find someone to print on traditional color paper (which looks better than ink jet, IMO) from a digital negative. A color print from a digital negative onto a traditional photographic paper is indistinguishable from one made by hand.
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

  6. #26
    Baxter Bradford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Lymington, South Coast, UK
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    772
    Images
    102
    Much very sound advice has been given on this tricky subject. The film itself is the best form of archive. The method of obtaining prints/viewing images becomes the subject. The Imacon users group (for scanners) is once again discussing methods involving huge expendure in order to make safe digital archives. There are no easy answers - apart from film!

    Whichever route you choose, the learning and spending needs to continue beyond what you outline above. By the very nature of this forum, the advice you receive here will be biased - towards the darkroom solution.

    I think you need to really research (far more extensively than obtaining opinions from strangers, even in a friendly and knowledgeable community like APUG) what each option entails and break down pros and cons along with the extra expenditure - colour head for enlarger, photoshop software+ ICC profiling for scanner/monitor/printer etc. Also about how the facility will fit into your home and how much you will need to learn to achieve results with which you are happy.

    You do not mention the split of B+W / Colour which you shoot - this could have a bearing.

    For the scanner route -I agree that you do not necessarily need to spend as much on the scanner itself, but ought to look for one with a top quality lens and high Dmax for colour work.

    The way of working itself is so very different and this ought to be something that will have a major say in your decision. Using computers cannot claim to be nearly so tactile or pleasurable as darkroom working; there are advantages which the digital workflow can offer..........

    Ideally, to cover all bases, you should be thinking about both routes!!!!!!!

  7. #27

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by roteague
    A color print from a digital negative onto a traditional photographic paper is indistinguishable from one made by hand.
    When making a small size print, 4x6 and 5x7, prints made optically using an enlarger or one that made with an old optical printer is of much higher resolution than one made digitally. This is the reason I go back to the darkroom as virtually all labs now use digital printers.

  8. #28
    Dave Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Chan Tran
    When making a small size print, 4x6 and 5x7, prints made optically using an enlarger or one that made with an old optical printer is of much higher resolution than one made digitally. This is the reason I go back to the darkroom as virtually all labs now use digital printers.
    I am sorry, I have to disagree, the lab I worked at had a machine capable of making prints from the noritsu that were identical to the optical prints we made with the noritsu 1220 we had which was an opticle printer and the newer machine the 2900 was digital, in the 4x6 and 5x7 size, you could not tell the difference..hand made prints from a regular enlarger are sharper than any of the machines I have used.

    R.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,983
    Just pull out a loupe and compare them or scan them on the flat bed at 600dpi or more.

  10. #30
    Dave Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Chan Tran
    Just pull out a loupe and compare them or scan them on the flat bed at 600dpi or more.
    I have many times, so I will stick with my statement, if your seeing differences I would suspect the opperator more than I would the equipment, there are many labs that employee people who don't know how to run either an optical or a digital printer. There are two many variables in scanners and skill levels to use a home scanner to determine print quality..I see to often the equipment gets blamed for something, when in truth it is the person running the equipment, but that is cool..

    R.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin