Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,511   Posts: 1,645,212   Online: 1087
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 37 of 37
  1. #31
    L Gebhardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    NH - Live Free or Die
    Large Format
    Blog Entries
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    I have a filing system which allows me to locate prints and negatives quickly and it does not require a computer to use it. I can still pull photographs and slides from the early 1960's on in a very short time.

    Others have posted their filing systems on APUG, and many of those are even faster and better than mine. Now if you toss the envelopes in a drawer or box without have a decent filing systems, when then yes you will have to "[hunt] through tons on envelopes".

    All my newer stuff is organized too since I started doing color development. And all my black and white film since I started. But the drug store developed snap shots have no contact sheets, and are simply filed away with one set of prints. Someday I'll make some contacts from the hundreds of rolls and then I'll be completely organized too. But it's more work than I want for quick snaps of the kids and cats.

  2. #32
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Multi Format
    I shoot slides mostly, and have been unhappy to see films disappear, especially Kodachrome.
    But to put things in perspective: when I started in 1974, leaving out specialized films like infrared, there were (hoping I haven't forgotten anything): two Kodachromes, 25 and 64, which were widely regarded, including by me, as the best. There were two Ektachromes, ASA 64 and 160, neither of which I liked; Fujichrome R100, which had rather unnatural color, sort of a pre-Velvia; Agfachrome, which had IMO very good color but was grainier than K64; and the Konica, GAF and Scotch films, which I don't think I ever tried. I know there were high-speed films other than High Speed Ektachrome, but I never heard they were better, so I didn't try them.

    No manufacturer had multiples of same-speed film differentiated by color palette, as Kodak and especially Fuji still have.

    So even if we end up with only a few choices we'll still be not worse off than we were back in a time when transparency film ruled for most professionals and the E-6 films now are far superior to the old ones.

    That doesn't mean I don't care. I hate losing Astia in 35mm, as it's my (much) preferred night film. So I'm shooting night shots more in 645 format.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Dunedin,New Zealand
    Multi Format
    JB - "exponentially cheaper to own and run" encapsulates it nicely.
    Sometimes you have to spend a hunk of change to save a few cents.

  4. #34
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Medium Format
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrunner View Post
    My negatives are filed autobiographically.
    I know where all of my negatives are. They're all in my house somewhere.

    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Downers Grove Illinois
    Digital is very expensive and best indulged by rich people or pros short on time who can pass costs on.

    There are no decent 35mm scanners at cost you are willing to accept. 120 and up can be done with flat beds made for it.

    The big advantage to digital is speed and the very fine control you can have and the ability to make numerous prints with the same dodge & burn exactly.

  6. #36
    Greg Davis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Nicholasville, KY
    8x10 Format
    Like others said already, it depends on how deep into one method or the other you want to get. I am an artist and photography professor, so I have to know both. I use a darkroom for every image I can. For photographs made with my digital camera, I choose to use a lab that operates a LightJet machine so I can have a silver based print simply because I like the look of the paper better than inkjet of any brand. I see what the school pays for ink and it is absolutely ridiculous how much they spend, especially since they complain about the much lower cost of the darkroom. But that is administration for you, always wanting to appear cutting edge. I also purchased, for cheap, a used drum scanner and learned how to operate it so when RA-4 paper is no longer available I can scan my negatives and print them whatever method is still around. Until then, I work as often as possible with paper and chemicals in the dark, not because it's cheaper or easier, but because I enjoy it.

    Did millions of people suddenly disappear? This may have an answer.

    "No one knows that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." -Matthew 24:36

  7. #37
    Andrew K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Melbourne, Australia
    Multi Format
    my 2 cents worth..as someone who has printed for 30 years, and owns a couple of scanners..

    It depends on 2 things - how important 120 is to you, and who will print your work.

    120 scanners are not cheap, and most of the flat bed ones produce less than ideal results. The best is the Epson V 750/700 scanner, but I would also get one of the aftermarket, custom neg trays you can adjust to correct focus on the negs - from what I've seen they are the difference between chalk and cheese. I have Canon pro scanner - it;'s OK for scanning color negs (I shoot color pinholes), but for critical work I send my negs to a lab to be scanned on a 120 Nikon scanner or a drum scanner (I only do a few a year, so the cost is negligable, and the scans can be printed to 30 inches wide adn look as good as if I'd done them in a darkroom).

    35mm is easy - just buy a dedicated scanner - Nikon, Minolta, or even a old Canon 4000. I've also seen good results out of the top of the range prime scanners. The trick with all of them - if you are scanning black and white buy VIEWSCAN software - it makes all the difference. On my Minolta scanner the Minolta software produces great color scans, but the black and white scans are dreadful - grainy and not great tonal range. Viewscan scans them perfectly..

    Printing is the other issue. Have a good look into what ink will cost you. I did, and I bought a small A4 Canon scanner years ago for "proofing", with the intention of sending out my printing to a lab for "folio" prints. The amazing thing is the results I get out of my Canon scanner are that good that I have used many of them in my folio (Color that is - black and white prints look a bit pink).

    So I do my own proofs, and get any enlargements done by a lab. I've found it's far cheaper this way. If you look around at your local pro labs you could be surprised what they charge for digital printing - it may be lots cheaper than you think (like $1.70 for a 8x12 inch print on traditionally developed photo paper)

    A camera is only a black box with a hole in it....

    my blog...some film, some digital http://andrewk1965.wordpress.com/

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234



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