Do you scan?

[djphoto]

<p>George, give me your address and I will send you the prints if you will pay the cost of sending them back to me.</p>

[djphoto]

<p>Let me follow up by saying that I will do the same for anyone else who would like to see the two 16x20 prints and is willing to pay the postage both ways.<br>

<br />In response to George's smug comment about cameras with two and even three megapixels being sold as "professional" tools, I offer this link to an article about Jay Maisel written by Berman and Maher, which appeared in Shutterbug Magazine in (I think) 2002.</p>

<p>Maisel should need no introduction, but in this digital age, many new people coming into photography have no idea of the history of the medium, even the recent history. Suffice it to say that Maisel has been one of the very top editorial/commercial/annual report photographers in the country for the last 50 years. He's over 80 years old now, and still working, but these days he makes much of his income from the sale of limited editions of his large prints. He was one of the most successful photographers of the last half of the 20th century and moved into the 21st with a flourish.</p>

<p>A Kodachrome shooter for almost all of his career, Maisel switched to digital in 2001, with a Nikon D1 -- a 2.74 megapixel "professional" tool. As detailed in the linked interview with Berman and Maher, he only shot one roll of film from that time on, but continued to do his professional work and sell his prints with the D1.</p>

<p>I don't know you, George, and I wish you well, but frankly, someone of the stature of a Jay Maisel has far more creditability than you. Here's a link to the article. I hope you'll read it. Also, check out Jay on the internet. He's easy to find. </p>

<p>http://bermangraphics.com/press/jaymaisel.htm</p>

[saintelmo21]

<p>It was interesting to note that Jay Maisel's latest book "Jay Maisel's New York" does not contain one single image that was "shot digitally."</p>

<p>Also, he is a 35mm shooter and nowhere in the interview does he mention anything about resolution or any other techno-garble besides how convenient chimping is. In fact, he seems to abhor post processing entirely. It seems he prefers to just go out and take photos. Nothing wrong with that. A photographer of his stature could go out with a cell phone and make images that sell.....</p>

<p>So, Q.G., do you scan? I'd love to see you post a photo on this month's MF POTM thread...</p>

[jon_kobeck1]

I am actually thinking about going back to 35mm from MF film because it cost me the same $20.00 to get a roll of 10 MF

scanned or a roll of 36 in the case of 35mm........:

[tom_bloomer1]

<p> - someone of the stature of a Jay Maisel has far more creditability than you.<br>

-------------------------------------------<br>

"credit-ability" - using Jay Maisels karma to support your dogma? It ain't what you know, but who you know that counts? If you can't dazzle them with brilliance . . . <br>

</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>"credit-ability" - using Jay Maisels karma to support your dogma? It ain't what you know, but who you know that counts? If you can't dazzle them with brilliance . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tom, there's nothing wrong in citing the work of experts. In fact, it's mandatory when we write scientific research papers. Photography is a bit different (it has both objective/technical and subjective/aesthetic components), but pointing to the work of a highly respected practitioner is appropriate and should not draw that kind of dismissal.</p>

[tom_bloomer1]

<p><em>Tom, there's nothing wrong in citing the work of experts. In fact, it's mandatory when we write scientific research papers.</em></p>

<p>------------------------------------<br>

Balderdash! The plural of anecdote is not data. Science depends on stating a hypothesis and testing it, and the ability of others to reproduce the same results with the same test. <br>

------------------------------------<br>

<em>Photography is a bit different (it has both objective/technical and subjective/aesthetic components), but pointing to the work of a highly respected practitioner is appropriate and should not draw that kind of dismissal.</em><br>

-------------------------------------<br>

What I am dismissing is the ludicrous name dropping in support of a technical argument. That something sells, that everyone is doing it, that it is popular, that you can look it up in the King James Version . . . that ain't science. </p>

 

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Tom, there's nothing wrong in citing the work of experts. In fact, it's mandatory when we write scientific research papers.</em><br>

------------------------------------<br /> Balderdash! The plural of anecdote is not data. Science depends on stating a hypothesis and testing it, and the ability of others to reproduce the same results with the same test. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tom, maybe I should point out that when I said "<em>when we write scientific research papers"</em>, I was referring to myself and my grad students and collaborators. We do actually write research papers and in the process we do actually extensively cite the work of other peer-reviewed experts. Your definition of science is fine but you're omitting the "standing on the shoulders of giants" part - science for the most part advances slowly and incrementally, building on what was done before by other people.</p>

<p>I saw logic in Dave's citing of Jay Maisel, in response to Q.G. In the same position, I would cite <a href="http://www.russellrutherford.com">James Russell</a>, who used a 6MP Kodak DCS760 (based on the Nikon F5) for some wonderful pro work. He's got a pretty awesome list of awards if you click through my link.</p>

[djphoto]

<p>Heaven save us from the pixel-peepers! Jay Maisel made and sold very large prints from a 2.74 megapixel camera that satisfied his own very high standards, standards that were honed by 40+ years of shooting and making dye transfers from Kodachrome and Velvia 50. If the quality were not there, he would have known it and would have continued using film until he felt that digital were up to the job.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Dave, no matter who did it, or how many years that someone might have been doing somethign else, <i>"very high standards"</i> and <i>"very large prints from a 2.74 megapixel camera"</i> don't go together.<br><br>This is even more ludicrous than the digirati nonsense about 6 MP being good enough. Which itself was more ludicrous than what Greg first injected into this thread.<br>Can't wait for the next contribution, claiming that you don't even need 0.5 MP to create a high quality 10x20 ft mural. It's like we've been thrown back 20 years...<br><br>Here's a question: what digital camera are you using today, Dave?

[tom_bloomer1]

<p>A scientist would put 2.74MP prints side by side with dye transfers from 35mm chromes and compare them for fidelity without knowing which was which in advance or WHO shot the images. </p>

[djphoto]

<p>In answer to Q.G.'s question, I have worked with the Canon 5D system for the last five or six years. My specialty is architecture. You can check out my work here: www.davidbjenkins.com.</p>

<p>You theoreticians don't seem to understand the basic fact about photography: photography is about how things look. If it looks good, it is good. Whether it fits into your little formulas or not.</p>

<p>Really, you're just silly. Have fun peeping at your pixels. I live and work in the real world, and I'm outa here!</p>

[jon_kobeck1]

Personally I prefer the aesthetics of film. As a fine art photographer, I like the "look" of film. To me, digital looks too clean,

too perfect and too sterile. Film with all its imperfections, is more attractive to my eye. And I don't care one bit about

pixels, resolution and all that jazz. Digital is conveninet but in my opinion film just looks right. I guess if I was shooting

weddings or stuff like that I would need the speed of digital. Here is my website with a recent film project

http://www.johnkobeck.com

[q.g._de_bakker]

Next question, Dave: why a 5D, when a 2.74 MP camera would have been enough? After all, it's <i>"about how things look. If it looks good, it is good"</i>, and <i>"Jay Maisel made and sold very large prints from a 2.74 megapixel camera that satisfied his own very high standards, standards that were honed by 40+ years of shooting and making dye transfers from Kodachrome and Velvia 50. If the quality were not there, he would have known it and would have continued using film until he felt that digital were up to the job."</i><br><br>It is indeed about how things look, Dave. Why do you suppose anyone thinks otherwise?<br>If anyone's <i>"very high standards"</i> are satisfied by how the results produced by those machines you too don't want to use, it's about standards as well.<br>And it has been that since the first digital pro machines were thrust upon us as such. Though obviously not up to the task, we were told that they were the next best-thing-anyone-should-use. Some image editors bought into that (some even of magazines that were about high quality imaging) and published unsharp, pixelated images. Apparently it no longer was a "how things look" thing.<br>And whatever it has become (a creed), it's still with us today (viz. how this thread was derailed, and what you, Dave, contributed to that). Digital capture is a very nice bit of technology. And it would be very nice to discuss imaging, regardless of what technology is used. But first we have to get rid of this inane nonsense. Open your eyes, see for yourself, and don't chant the chants, recite the mantras. Drop the silly creed, and get real.

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Just for fun here is one from a 2.75mp D1h.</p>

<div></div>

[djolk]

<p>I can everything, low res, with lots of dust and hairs, 'quick' and dirty like to preview. If I want to print, or post, or publish I will rescan and do a better job at it. I live in northern Canada and have to send all my film 'outside' to be developed so I get a huge pile of it back at once, everytime this happens I consider paying someone else to scan it.</p>

[djphoto]

<p>So, which are we going to believe? Q.G., Jens, et.al., or our own lyin' eyes?</p>

[tom_bloomer1]

<p>Belief is a powerful thing. Ron White does a comedy routine about it.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

What are you suggesting, Dave? That that 2.7 MP picture shown here shows a high quality image? To cite a very wise man who frequents this forum: <i>"you have got to be kidding"</i>.<br>Belief is indeed a powerful thing. <i>"Drop the silly creed, and get real."</i><br>But to be fair: maybe you just have an eye-condition that needs seeing to.

[djphoto]

<p>No, you guys have a mental condition that needs seeing to. By definition, if something exists, then it is possible for it to exist, whether it fits any "scientific" theory or not.</p>

<p>Scientifically, it is impossible for a bumblebee to fly.</p>

[tom_bloomer1]

<p>Actually the bumblebee thing is a great example of how a stupid myth is repeated over and over again, passed down through generations of "believers." The math and physics that explain the bumblebee have been around for as long as the myth. People avoid critical thinking - no opiate. </p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I was hoping someone might post a head shot shot on medium format film. I just don't have a scanner good enough to really get the best from film but I do know from my optical B&W prints from B&W negs that the D1h is not really close to what I can get from 35mm films let alone medium format film. Here is a 645 neg that I scanned with my V500. I scanned at 3200ppi around 24mp and the reduce the image down to give a 4000x3000pixels that works out to be 12mp which is a fair size from a V500 and 645 negs. A better scanner won't help much as the image is not critically on the dogs eye.</p><div></div>

[tom_bloomer1]

<p>Here is a scan of a 6x6 neg. The "eye" is full resolution. A 76mp file scanned with a Microtek Artixscan M1 @ 4800ppi.<br>

<img src="http://blackburnforge.com/images/Image0083a.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://blackburnforge.com/images/Image0083b.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[bobbuck19]

<p>Didn't mean to stir a hornet's nest here, was just wondering if there are many film users who like me don't scan, I would like to have the convenience of a scanned photo for posting and sharing, but for now cost and not wanting to invest the time are the main reasons I don't, do now have access to a canoscan and will have to learn to use it this winter. Or if I hit the lottery will go for the North coast scans with developing for every roll.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Robert,<br><br>You can indeed scan prints on a normal flatbed scanner in no time at all. Those scans will be about good enough for sharing on the web.