vincetylor

February 7, 2012

I put in my order this morning. This is what I have been waiting for. I disagree though that there is no need for a D4X. It will be the same D4 robust body, with plenty of added Nikon 'soup' like ingredients mixed in on top of what the D800 has now, but for a lot more.

July 24, 2009

Last one<div>

00U1eb-157681784.jpg.dc0a0c6770061cccd87d09668ec100ac.jpg

</div>

July 24, 2009

Pacific Northwest<div>

00U1eN-157679884.jpg.0476a3138e9bf147acce9ec9a1af06b5.jpg

</div>

July 24, 2009

Washington D.C.<div>

00U1eG-157678184.jpg.6df835f0ba99232b10b98cb66d2af3d0.jpg

</div>

July 24, 2009

Hawaii<div>

00U1e2-157675884.jpg.2b7782c338b79f2bb80c59bcded0c3b1.jpg

</div>

July 24, 2009

Another.<div>

00U1dx-157673884.jpg.b9123d33eabee139b3ca8c71b44f4fe9.jpg

</div>

July 24, 2009

I guess with all this discussion involvement I should at least post something in honor of my fav film.<div>

00U1du-157673684.jpg.ecb31a8f5fc38e45d78decc4012ca9f0.jpg

</div>

July 22, 2009

Dan writes: "I can see the grain quite clearly. Beautiful photo, though! I'm sure it looks amazing at 16x24."

</blockquote>

**** Man, this is good. Your friend Dave just tried explaining how it's not visible grain but like smeared invisible grain.

And others are asking if I used any noise reduction program. But Dan says he sees grain problems.

This is too funny. Who needs movies when we got this stuff going on here.

Hey Dan, you are the guy that wrote the now famous, "35mm film blown up to 40x60 has grain the size of popcorn kernels." .

But Dan, where are all those kernels?? : )

You see folks we got people that are just totally set in their ways and will defend broken old ideas until they can't do it any longer. Such people can be likened to sticks in the mud. No presentation of evidence will likely mean anything of consequence to them. Fair enough then.

And then you have folks who are open to what the real world comes up with, what the true facts show, even if it means an old way of doing things has just been improved upon and can be discarded; and, are willing to be refined, adjusted and to be humbled when the truth is put in front of them to be seen and grasped in full enough detail.

I try to listen to whatever the evidence shows. I try to remain open minded under all circumstances. I am a Velvia lover too. I owe my livelihood to that fab film. I've defended film for many years.

But I can also see that times have changed and the digital revolution is now allowing greater freedom to create better images with less hassles and costs beyond the short term than ever before.

And nobody on this thread has shown me any reason to think differently.

And we have covered a lot of territory. Just look at all these posts above.

I have a ton of work to get back to now (yep, including a ton of scanning still to do) and will check back occasionally, but unless something significant comes up will just bow out now and thank you all for a lively exchange of opinion.

No hard feelings intended. Happy shooting ... film and digital alike.

My best to you all,

Vince

</blockquote>

July 22, 2009

Quote: "Vincent, my Astia and Pro160S 4x5 sheets are scanned by West Coast Imaging and their Tango. I have no problem seeing grain from 4x5 at a print size 60" wide. What you're seeing is smeared film files. Fractals works very well on film files as it concentrates on edges at the expense of texture....and it sees film grain as texture and smears it."

</blockquote>

**** How many times did I mention I did not use Fractals here?? Probably five or six at the least. Please read. And I never said there is no grain; what I asked was, "where is the popcorn kernel sized grain?", in reply to your and Dan's comments above. In case you can't remember let me post them for you here:

Quote from Dan: "35mm film blown up to 40x60 has grain the size of popcorn kernels." Quote from Dave: "True Dan. 40x60 from 35mm is awful!"

</blockquote>

And I'll get back to those in a minute. What you saw posted were crops from 40x60 interpolated files by Photoshop. Fractals is even cleaner and smoother. But my G5 does not like fractals for some odd reason and starts to rev up when I use it for anything substantial. So using it here just aint worth it. If you have significant grain issues from 4x5 sheet film scanned by a Tango then perhaps you should try Velvia. What I posted is not a grain problem. What I sell at 40x60 looks very good. No, not as good as what a larger piece of film would produce, but definitely more than good enough. And at 24x36 size ALL of my prints are of excellent quality. So when you write:

"True Dan. 40x60 from 35mm is awful!"

</blockquote>

It just shows me that you really do not know what you are talking about to come across as some kind of an authority, IMO.

Quote: "So please, spare me the "What world I live in" comments. If you don't understand that basic information on how fractals works with film grain, then I suggest you check out our world....called reality."

</blockquote>

**** Fractals was not used here... again. That said, how do you think professionals print 24x36's from any digitally produced file? Answer: Through interpolation of some form. If I can create very sellable 40x60's by using Fractals on 24x36 original TIFFS, and our labs like how they print and our customers love what they receive, then who are you to tell anybody to check out the real world and that large prints from 35mm are awful? Your words not mine here. It is the one that denies the proof that is sitting on their laps that perhaps needs a little dose of reality check.

Quote: "Your tone here has become combative and tiring. Considering I've printed as part of my living for many years, I've seen, scanned, and printed files from 35mm through 8x10 trannies. I know what results look like very well thanks. If you mistake fractal smearing of texture for a lack of grain, then I'm sorry my friend, it's you who doesn't know what he's talking about."

</blockquote>

**** YOU are the one saying 35mm does not work for large printing. I am simply replying. I'm not only telling you you are wrong here but showing you as well explaining why. Earlier up on this thread you stated this:

Quote: "But at large size prints above 16x24, 35mm color looks like grainy mush compared to high resolution digial or MF or large format film capture. For prints at 24x30, I would never use 35mm film. MF would be the bottom limit for me on landscape prints that need detail. In fact, I'd prefer LF for the lack of grain and more accurate color pallette. But lets be realistic here. I've yet to see 35mm at 20x30 that looked anything but grainy....and that from the best photographers on the planet. 24mp digital will simply look better.....yes different as well, but that's up to personal taste."

</blockquote>

**** So now we go from your comment that 40x60 is just plain awful, to 20x30 is nothing but grainy and even 16x24 looks like mush. Your words not mine once again. Perhaps you should read your own quotes next time before posting. You have no idea what you are talking about here on this specific subject. I scan at 24x36 (larger than 16x24 and 20x30) and sell Lightjet Prints with stunning results. So now what?

Quote: "These threads normally turn to trash….especially when people argue about 40x60 prints and yet when they do their own work for sale, if any, rarely go beyond 16x20."

</blockquote>

**** Well, I sell MANY prints above 16x20. I showed you one just today that came in for a 24X36. This just goes to show me that you quite possibly still stuck back in the 90's somewhere. Not much else to say about it. You are wrong on this one!

Quote: "In the end though, I’ve seen stunning large prints from 35mm"

</blockquote>

**** So which is it now? Mushy, grainy, laughable and awful... or stunning? Sounds like you need to think things through just a little more.

Quote: "You'll also have what I normally see from 35mm.....mediocre quality and excuses for why larger formats weren't used."

</blockquote>

**** Complete and useless nonsense. I use 35mm because they give me the absolute best process for creating winning photographs. I certainly could use medium or large format. So why would I choose 35mm format over larger formats? I wrote this a couple of years ago on another forum when discussing this very subject: "Because of the 35mm format, I have faster and wider lenses available than if shooting in medium and or large format. I can also get more photos to a roll. Because of this I am actually able to take more photos, from a greater variety of angles, at varying apertures, shutter speeds and focal lengths. And then, when getting to the lightbox, for me, such a format and process has resulted in more winning images overall to choose from, to then master and scan for printing, stock use etc. I have well over 300 images in our print line and on websites that we currently offer as 24x36 Lightjet prints. Do you know how many are unacceptable due to grain, softness, flatness or anything else? ZERO. The only issue I have to keep in mind is to make sure I am careful about sharpening the files for prints of that size, or grain CAN become more of an issue.

IF a photographer uses consumer-grade lenses, does not use a tripod, stop down, is not careful with exposure etc etc, then yes the larger prints will certainly expose and magnify those issues. If the photographer takes pride in shooting it right the first time, then enlarging those originals to 24x36 or more will not be a problem in regards to print quality under any circumstances. At least not from my own experiences. And I have had plenty.Sure, a very large print from a 4x5 tranny will look smoother than one from a 35 mm slide. The differences however will not be THAT noticable to the naked eye in smaller sized prints. This fact is often overlooked and exaggerated. And let me also add this: While the photographer that uses large format will take perhaps a few different shots trying to capture a scene with his equipment, another photographer using 35mm with a variety of zooms, focal lengths, angles, shutter speeds, as well as bracketing for exposure, will undoubtedly produce the superior image overall. And perhaps many superior images in fact. It is much easier to produce *winners* with 35mm format than large format and even meduim for that matter. I would rather have a better variety of winning images, than one that will blow up to a larger size better.

A size that very few people will ever purchase by the way or one that you will rarely need. Living on an island basically means that most of my shooting trips however involve airfare, rental cars, hotels etc. Basically it's a business trip. When I do get to a location I am focused on working these locations as carefully and thoroughly as I possibly can. This way, when I do get to the lightbox I will have the best opportunity to find a few real winners. I usually arrive to a location with my F-5 along with the Nikon 17-35 around my neck, and the F-100 with the 28-70 over my shoulder, and a tripod on the other hand (similar to what you see on my current self-portrait). This combination has allowed me to work a scene as thoroughly as I know how. The number of times an image from a very unusual angle, or different focal point worked over the ones I expected to work when shooting is more numerous than I ever would have guessed. I also make point of always bracketing by .1/3 in each direction wherever I am shooting. (With Velvia, I have found that decision has saved many a trip once they were developed regardless of how good my equipment or how careful I might be). The point is that 35mm has allowed my this opportunity to shoot an abundance of images, from many differing vantage points, at many different shutter speeds and aperture settings. Sometimes seven or more rolls from one location. When I do get to that lightbox, I am almost always grateful that I took that time to change it up and work it thoroughly. Last Fall, I was in the Blue Ridge mountain area where I found a beautiful rose in full bloom. A soft rain also happened to be falling which really gave me an outstanding opportunity. I shot perhaps four rolls of this one rose, with three different lenses (28-70, the 105 macro and the 80-200). I also shot it from f/3.5 to f/22 and everything in between while bracketing as well. When I started to edit that series back at home, I was disappointed by several of these images, yet my socks were knocked off by yet others. The point is, that for me, the 35mm system allows me to do this very thing (creating winning images) that has over and over again proved so very valuable. In the end (with the exception of perhaps digital down the road) I cannot see a better system for creating the best possible images we as photographers are possibly able to find. Thanks for the interchange, is always helpful and at times even can be fun.

**** Back to current. I have no problems with film lovers shooting film for the rest of their lives. (I've loved my Velvia 50 as well). I have no problems if people think that digital is a bad idea. And I have no problems if people think 35mm is grainy mush. But when you make statements such as those I've seen on this thread, publicly, praising film as the only real way, claiming 35mm format is for convenience only, or that all prints over 16x20 are laughably awful grainy mush, and grain sized of popcorn kernels; then just be prepared do defend those silly accusations and claims. Because once in a while people that disagree and know better tend to show up.

July 22, 2009

Anyway, I am headed out for a few hours. But this is getting tiresome.

The point is that some of you folks have no idea what you're talking about. In fact I just received an order ten minutes ago for a 24x36 of this print from our website:

<a href="http://www.hawaiianphotos.net/detail.aspx?ID=301">http://www.hawaiianphotos.net/detail.aspx?ID=301</a>

Subject: Hawaiian LandMark Images Merchant Order Notification

Date: July 22, 2009 12:35:53 PM HST

To: michele@hawaiianphotos.net

Cc: vince@hawaiianphotos.net

These products will be shipped to the above address: 1. Product ID: K-41B Product Name: Kauai's Tunnels Beach Attributes (if any): Photographs and Giclees - 24x36 Photo Only Price: $198.00 Quantity: 1

**** This is nothing new. We sell large prints from 35mm all the time. Including 40x60 several times.

July 22, 2009

Quote: "no noise reduction on that one, Vincent? Is that crop 40x60" @ 300dpi??"

**** Absolutely none. Yes at 300 DPI. Interpolated in photoshop. Fractals is even better.

Here is another one from Maui. Zero noise reduction. Scanned at 24x36, 300 DPI TIFF. Interpolated to 40x60 through Photoshop.

Where's all that grain the size of popcorn kernels??

</blockquote>

July 22, 2009

Quote: "True Dan. 40x60 from 35mm is awful! I can see grain from 4x5 at that size so the talk of clean images from 35mm is laughable."

</blockquote>

**** What world are you living in? If you shoot it correctly, with good glass, tripod, scanned with no desktop junk scanner, you can get regular 40x60's, from 35mm, that is more than acceptable as just posted above. And we have sold several.

And that crop was interpolated with photoshop and not fractals which takes more time. Fractals is even better.

So where's the grain folks?

July 22, 2009

Quote: "Point 1: "World class images" are not the product of a particular capture technology. World class images are the product of vision, composition, exposure, light, and the magic of the moment. It doesn't matter what camera you use, it's not going to create "world class images." Only YOU can do that."

</blockquote>

**** Wrong! The lack of quality equipment can render a world class capture as totally useless. Try using a cell phone camera and see what you can do with it. Try taking a photo of Hawaiian turquoise waters without a polarizer. Try shooting a sunset without an ND. I can continue. World class images are a result of BOTH vision, composition, light etc and having the proper equipment to capture that moment with.

Quote: "Point 2: Digital is not without its hassles. Dust on the sensor. Size and weight of the kit (including peripherals). Expense (camera, cards, computer, drives, software, monitors). File archiving compatibility - will anyone be able to read a TIFF file in 40 years? Memory card failure. Time and effort (post processing, archiving, color management). It's all a lot simpler with film."

</blockquote>

**** You must be in denial. I've seen a bit of that on this thread.

Here just to refresh your memory:

Jul 20, 2009; 03:43 p.m. Vincent K. Tylor

All I've ever shot with professionally is Velvia 50 and my F5. It has supported my family and I for ten years now. I've also used Provia along with Velvia 100 (for some wildlife and seascapes). But Nothing compares to 50 for me when it comes to landscape work. I also own a $47,000 Eversmart Supreme II scanner to scan those bad boys. I love Velvia. It seems more real, organic, natural blah blah blah to me. That said, I am soon to switch over to digital and say goodbye to my precious Velivia 50. Why would I kick out of bed what has been so good and loyal to me for so long? The answers: 1- NO MORE SCANNING!!!!!! 2- Hundreds to thousands of images, non-stop, to a memory card verses having to change rolls every 36 photos. (I have lost great shots because I ran out when I ran out). 3- No film costs. (One Pacific Northwest 30 day trip cost me $2000 in film alone). Do some math, I've been doing this 10 years now. 4- No developing film costs. (That same Pacific Northwest trip cost me almost the same amount in developing). Do some math, I've been doing this 10 years now. 5- Instant results. I have lost MANY ROLLS because of problems such as a sticky aperture that I would have known with digital. Or because I set ASA to 6 by accident one day. When I finally noticed it (12 rolls later) I almost cried. 6- Ability to change ISO settings whenever I want to. 7- Ability to change size of image file settings whenever I want to. 8- Cameras like new D3X which shoot 24.5 megs which now competes with medium format. (AND LOOKS AMAZING!!) 9- No more squinting on lightbox editing. (Sometimes I swear I was going blind from too much of that). 10- No more airport hassles having to scan or hand inspect all my rolls of film. 11- No moor having to keep my film cold when traveling all over. 12- Did I mention NO MORE SCANNING!!!! That's worth a second time here. Scanning is a pain in the A$$. Every film slide that gets chosen then has to get to be scanned, cleaned up, cropped, sized which TAKES A LOT OF TIME and hassle. Sometimes the scans suck and I get to rescan it. Weeeee. Oftentimes with Veliva there is a magenta cast when scanned. weeeeee With digital every single image is like a clean scan all ready to print. If digital was just slightly inferior I'd still switch because of all teh reasons above. But folks, all of my professional labs say (more like YELL IT) that today's digital is BETTER than film today. I cannot interpolate my film scans anywhere near as much as my son can interpolate his digital images. They fall apart much faster. And I have one of the best scanners in the world. Nat Geo uses two of what I have. And remember, I love my Veliva and it has been sooo good to me and has completely supported me and family in Hawaii. But when I finally get that D3X knowing all scanning is now over and all the other things on my little list, I'l be happy to say goodbye to my precious Velvia 50 for good. Today I rent inexpensive Nikon D-60's for our photo tours biz to customers and also use them for all webwork because it's so easy and fast and NO MORE SCANNING. It takes super images. I can't wait to get that bog boy for professional landscape work soon! And I love my Velvia 50...

**** I hope this refreshes your memory just a bit about all the HASSLES that you lose when using digital and giving up film.

Quote: "They're all very talented fellows, but there's nothing here that's on par with the film work of artists like Rowell, Dykinga, and Muench. Besides, when people use digital capture, you never know if the colors actually looked like that or whether they were added in Photoshop. When I have my film scanned I give strict instructions: MATCH THE CHROME. No ficticious colors!"

</blockquote>

**** Nonsense! The best photos taken nowadays are with digital outfits. Plain and simple.

Quote: (when asked if I should quote other digital photographers): "I think I speak for the majority when I say, "No, thank you." ;-)"

</blockquote>

**** I bet I know why...

Quote: "Now they call it rubbish. In a few years, your precious $8000 D3X will be considered rubbish. It's the way of the digital world, unfortunately."

</blockquote>

**** If they call the D3, D300, D3X and Canon's similar models, "RUBBISH", in just a couple years, due to even greater progress than what we see now; then what do you think film we be considered by then? Digital already competes and even equals what film can do now with less costs time and hassles.

Quote: "35mm film blown up to 40x60 has grain the size of popcorn kernels. You can't defy physics. If you're printing 40x60 from film you should consider a 6x9 back or a 5x7 camera."

</blockquote>

**** You really don't know, do you? Here's a scanned 35mm slide at 24x36, enlarged to 40x60 through Photoshop of all things. (Using Fractals is far superior). I have been doing this for many years now with success.

What kernel sized grain??

July 22, 2009

Quote: "Dan, that lighthouse is breathtaking." Reply: "Thanks! That's why I'll never give up on film."

</blockquote>

**** As if digital could not capture such a scene as your lighthouse shot? Ok sure. : )

Check out some of these guys photos: <a href="http://www.timecatcher.com/main.cfm?p=04_100">http://www.timecatcher.com/main.cfm?p=04_100</a> Hint hint, THEY ALL SHOOT DIGITAL!!! As well as do MOST landscape photographers today. I can post THOUSANDS MORE EXAMPLES.

Want me to? I'm happy if you guys want to stick with film. I say good for you. But at least take off the blinders that lead you folks to believe ONLY FILM can capture nice landscapes like that. Digital can now bring home world class landscape images without all the hassles, time and costs of film. Sooner or later you're going to have to face the music.

<blockquote>Quote: "I only shoot film but all this bitching that happens ahhh what's the use; that's why I don't use this forum much." </blockquote>

**** Sorry, but ths was (and still is) on the Photo.net FRONT PAGE. I shoot film by the way. I have shot nothing BUT FILM professionally for over ten years. And for me to post some facts on this thread after reading some very biased statements against digital is not "bitc*ing". Though some may consider your own little contribution on this thread just that.

<blockquote>Quote: "But which 12MP are you talking about? The 12MP of a D2X? The 12MP of a D300? Or the 12MP of the D3/D700? I guarantee that if you put a D3 image beside a D2X image, the D3 will BLOW IT AWAY."</blockquote>

**** I never said the D2X was better than D3 or even equal. In fact I said the D2X was a dinosaur with noise issues to boot. What I wrote is that my using Velvia 50 film for landscapes, along with having an Eversmart Supreme II top class scanner would equal or surpass what the newer digital cameras can do for fine art printing ... especially for printing large. I currently print 24x36 regularly with perfect customer success with all of my photos on our website. I offer as large as 40x60 with most of my photos because files are still usually that clean and noiseless due to low grain slow film (Velvia 50), using tripod, expensive glass, high powered scanner etc etc. Now, the D3 is a natural 9x13 digital file. I can go from 9x13 to 24x36 (w/Genuine Fractals) with somewhat regularity from what I have seen because the digital images are just that good and clean right out of the camera. (Which is still a LOT amount of interpolation, btw). But going larger (a 9x13 up to a 40x60) is in many cases simply stretching things TOO FAR. Not so with a 24.5 meg D3X which files come out of the camera in the range of a 19x28. I have read 40x60 is a piece of cake with those D3X files. Which is what I was waiting for before going into digital. Yep, I have just defend BOTH sides of the digital vs film discussion in one single comment.

July 21, 2009

"What I struggle with it is scanning to share online. I scan with a lower end Minolta scanner. I can never recreate the analog textures and the colours, and on top of the small Velvia latitude, I lose some dynamic range and sharpness. So if sharing online was the only thing, I would much rather shoot in DSLR."

</blockquote>

**** Exactly.

This is what I've been saying. Beautiful, colorful Velvia transparencies lose plenty of that colorful beauty once you take it in to get scanned.

Scanning ANY SLIDE FILM loses quality from the original.

But with new digital D3X you avoid scanning altogether and still have huge, clean files to do whatever you want with straight out of the camera.

</blockquote>

July 21, 2009

Dan South Quotes me: Vincent K. Taylor: "I did not switch with just the 12 megapixels and the (D2X) or any of the newer D3 series. I can already compete with those with my film and top class scanner."

</blockquote>

Dan South Replies to my quote: "You can compete how, exactly? What film are you using for low-noise, fine-grained images at ISO 1600, 3200, and beyond?"

**** I am a landscape photographer exclusively. I shoot with Velvia 50 almost exclusively. (Very Fine Grain Film). And I have one of the best scanners available. So under these circumstances, with this film and scanner combination, shooting slow landscapes, I can compete with and even exceed what 12 megapixels can do for my specific application of landscape photography.

If I was a landscape shooter and also did weddings, then digital wins, IMO.

If I shoot landscape and do sports photography, digital wins, IMO.

But because I shoot ONLY landscapes and because I do have a top scanner and only use a very rich, colorful and fine grained film, I can beat 12 meg digital system for what I do.

That all said, and I believe all true from first hand experience, I cannot beat or compete (using all of the above that I listed), with a 24.5 megappixel Nikon D3X camera.

The 24.5 meg outfit wins. Which is why it's time for this Velvia lover to move into digital now.

This is what I was waiting for from Nikon.

This is where Vinny jumps ship.

July 21, 2009

I only have time for a few replies this morning. "Everyone knows that I think digital is way too expensive and I bang on about it. But $45k for a scanner?? "

**** That's what a new one costs today. I paid only $30,000 including an oil station for a twice used show demo. Very few scanners have the capabilities of this one. I scan all of my slides as 222 meg (24x36) TIFFS. They are clean and beautiful files even at that size. It helps that I only use Nikon's best glass, a tripod most of the time and as close to F8 whenever possible.

Labs, even today, charge a hefty price for scans of this size and quality. Having my own scanner then made sense. We sell a lot of prints in retail accounts as well as online in four locations. And am building up our stock images department. But I can tell you that scanning takes time. Far more time than I ever wanted to spend. And I want out if digital can get me out... which finally now it can.

"Vincent, I notice that when you speak of the benefits of digital you are using the future tense, e.g. "I'll be editing on a big, wide, 23 inch Apple monitor[...]" Why not wait for six months or a year and tell us how it is, not how it will be?" **** I probably will. But, I have already seen what my son's Nikon D2X (that he purchased several years ago) can do. Go here: <a href="http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/8524016_hYZX2/6#P-1-15">http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/8524016_hYZX2/6#P-1-15</a> His fine art PRINTS are nothing short of stunning. That older model D2X camera has noise issues and now considered as a dinosaur when compared to the newest technology. I have already seen what our photo tours rental cameras (Nikon D60's) can do. I have used those for website and advertisement brochure work. Probably 90 percent of photos on this page were taken with a D60 and kit lens both costing less than $550 combined. And all shot in J-peg rather than raw. <a href="http://www.hawaiianphotos.net/kauai_tour_photos.htm ">http://www.hawaiianphotos.net/kauai_tour_photos.htm</a> I have read what photo editors and real world users have said about the D3X (on top of what I have seen with my eyes above). And time involved in scanning is completely eliminated. Film and developing costs are a thing of the past.

"Just wondering, do you expect Velvia-like images to pop out of your D3X? Digital photography is all about post-processing and it can take HOURS to get the colors the way you want. Of course, sometimes it takes just a couple of minutes. The D3X is no doubt a great camera (the greatest small format dSLR out there), however since you have been working with Velvia exclusively over the past 10 years, I hope you don't think that the D3X produces Velvia-like photos straight out of the box. You will spend A LOT of time in front of the computer." **** I absolutely do know this. I spend hours in editing every single day. But I can tell you one thing that I believe so many people seem to overlook here. No scan in the world can perfectly replicate what Velvia looks like on a lightbox. NONE. The scanning process alone causes a significant amount of degradation to what you see on a lightbox. And, it takes time in scanning process to lose that quality. How do you like that!

"Vincent, you are not only talented but also very seasoned, I am looking forward to hear how many endless nights you will spend trying to make the D3X landscapes look like the Velvia 50 you brought alongside." **** Remember Mauro, every digital file, straight out of the camera is like an already scanned, cleaned and cropped ready to edit file. That means no more scanning. That means no more sending out film to get developed and squinting through a loupe for hours along with many other things already listed. That means having 24.5 megapixels of often gorgeous imagery to do whatever I need to do with while eliminating so many hassles and time consuming elements that currently bog me down with film. But just to be sure I will come back and report exactly what I find. Though I have seen and read enough to know what to expect. We all love how Velvia looks on a light box. But Velvia never looks the same as a scan. And it takes TIME in photoshop to get it as close as possible.

"Also by not carrying your film camera it means you cannot shot B&W film anymore. If there is one thing more difficult to do than making a DSLR look like Velvia, that is making a decent B&W out of a DSLR." **** I have seen stunning B&W from digital. I have seen stunning B&W from digital again and again. I have seen stunning B&W from digital. I have seen....

"I think that sometimes the format gets in the way of simply saying "those are some gorgeous pictures". Those are some gorgeous pictures." **** I consider my current print line to have some gorgeous photos. So much so that we make a living from those photos. And just about every photo I have today was captured with Velvia 50. Believe me, I know what it can do. But I also know what today's digital world has accomplished and can do as well. And I am well aware of how much more time and expense using film requires. Which is why the time to switch for me has arrived. I would not switch with 12 megapixels. My film and scanner can match and often beat that. But not 24.5 megs it can't. I cannot do with 35mm film what 24.5 megs can do today. And if I switch to medium or large format then I lose the many advantages of using 35mm gear and lenses. I also get even LESS images per roll and more expense in film and developing. And I still have a ton of scanning to do. I am tired of scanning.

"Our result: Slides projected on a screen, that is a class of its own. Probably one of the reasons why we like to go to cinema ;-)." **** But nobody sells/uses Velvia projected on a screen. It has to be scanned and then cleaned and then edited and finally printed. The scanning process alone takes away any advantages film has over digital's quality, IMHO. Not to mention the added time and expenses.

"Before this thread degrades further, we should all keep in mind Vincent's reasoning for making the switch - it is a business decision. It's very easy for those of us who shoot for pleasure to say what someone should or shouldn't do for purely aesthetic reasons, but at the end of the day, ya gotta do what ya gotta do to make ends meet." **** Sorry, but I do not see this thread has degraded at all. Opinions and discussions are a good thing. But you are correct, if I loved shooting film as a hobby, I'd probably be content to just stay on course. But it's not a hobby. And I do see what digital can do.

And for me, being out there is far more enjoyable than scanning. Spending money on traveling is better than spending money on film and developing costs. Like already mentioned, I spent approx $3500 in film and developing alone on my 30 day Pacific Northwest trip a few years back. Just telling you how it is. Using digital back then would have saved me most if not all of that. And guess what? I HAVE STILL YET TO SCAN ANY OF THOSE PAC NW SHOTS!!!! I finally edited it all two years ago and there are some truly beautiful photos in there. But scanning has to get in line with other business priorities I have right now. Which is why doing this is not the brightest thing for me and why I am trying to be quick in my replies.

"(nothing like that pro scanner from Vincent - and yes, scanning takes time). It's a complimentary combination. I find that film also costs a hell of a lot of money - I've probably spend at least 300 or 400€ on paper, films and chemicals - and that would get me a really nice DSLR body or lenses. In the future I'm probably going to spend money primarily on digital, because I get really nice results from it, but will on time to time dime out for film (but, being a student, every € counts)" **** This is the paradox many film lovers find themselves in. And I am one of them. It simply takes a lot of time and money to keep doing with film what going to digital will allow me to avoid to a great degree. Nobody that I know of prefers scanning to shooting. Nobody that I know of prefers paying out money if they don't have to. If the end result of shooting digital was an inferior fine art print, then count me out. But that's just not the case any longer here folks. You can now print beautiful and LARGER prints with 35mm digital than with 35mm film. And at a fraction of the cost and time it takes with film. This is not rocket science here. This is not hyperbole.

"The problem I see with 35mm Velvia enlarged in print form that size is that at 20x30, 24x36 and 30x45, grain becomes more of an issue than resolution. Even at 16x24 you'll see grain lessen resolution. That is why I found that while these exceedingly high resolution figures mean little on print. In the end, at 20x30, I haven't seen any 35mm film, be it Velvia or Astia or Provia, match the PERCEIVED resolution of 21 or 24mp digital capture. " **** Dave is telling us what I see as well. Now, because I invested in a world class scanner, I can go larger than most without losing too much quality. In fact we have sold several 40x60's with outstanding success over the past few years. And 24x36's with regularity.

But every scan takes a lot of time from beginning to end. With today's 21-24 35mm digital cameras you are exceeding what you can do with 35mm film. And scanning is GONE AND DONE!!! Along with no film to lug around. Add to that no more film and developing costs. No more having to change rolls at 36 frames or less. Instant results, change ISO in a second etc etc etc

"I like the thread, a lot of good points being made and would love to see some more velvia scans as well. Nice gallery Vincent!" **** Thank you for the compliments. And I agree this has been a good thread to get involved with. Initially I did not realize this is in the film forum. I simply saw it on the Photo.net front page. I would probably have been a little more careful in what I wrote had I recognized that knowing that most people here are film lovers. If I missed anything pertinent feel free to let me know. I'll try to catch up again later. All the best,

Vince

July 20, 2009

"We know, business convenience yes, quality no. Got it, thanks."

**** I asked will it "blow it away" (and answered no) but you seemed to miss that part. I wonder why. Could that be because of those silly blinders again?

Come on, go to wiki and read up on blinders.

That is, whenever you find time between scanning.

: )

July 20, 2009

"You might even try Wiki, everything there is also true . . . ;-)"

**** Hey, does wiki write about wearing blinders. Look it up and let me know what you learn.

: )

Just having fun.

Have a good one.

July 20, 2009

"I figured you would site the Ludicrous Lambaste shootout but your source is the same. That's ok, we know better."

**** Yep they're ALL just made up bologna salami by folks who are just lost and clueless and have no idea what they are doing with a camera. That's why I said Google it yourself. This is fun.

"You can always include some macadamia nuts to sell more of your work. I can understand that your market is what it is . . ."

**** Well, if I keep charging more (as you suggest) to stay with film then can you pay for those Mac nuts for me?

"That's a typical haloe alright, drinking umbrella drinks . . . ;-)"

**** Yep, sorry umbrella drinks with coconuts, beach, turquoise waters and pretty Hawaiian gals doing hula while you're SCANNING.

heh

Gotta love it!

July 20, 2009

1. I like scanning better then RAW processing. **** Too bad we only live 70 some years. And for you a good part will be scanning while I will now be shooting. : ) 2. Get a video camera and shoot more. **** A Total WHIFF. Doesn't even make sense.

"3. Get a celphone camera and you can text it . . . even faster."

**** Another whiff. What does any of that have to do with paying for film?? You okay over there?

"4. Cost of doing business, pass it along."

**** Not any more! Now can cut costs, sell product for less and sell more of it to consumers. But hey you can still pass those extra charges along. : ))

"5. Picture the image in your mine before you mash the shutter . . . even faster."

**** Too bad following that advice still gets me blown rolls without knowing, even with a faster shutter press...

"6. Mid roll rewind, even your F5 must have that. Multiple backs with MF."

**** Or just use digital and press a button. Let me see, five minutes or five seconds... hmmmmm....

"7. Who doesn't know how to change filesize is challenged."

**** Big files for stellar landscape shots and little ole J-pegs for photos of rover. All in three seconds. But YOU gotta SCAN all of it first! Yep, I'm challenged alright.

"8. Show me how a D3X competes with MF and I will show you someone who managed to show a 3mp digianything showed more detail then an Imacon scan of 35mm Provia 100F. You thinking Nikon will answer you without bias says it all . . ."

**** That's why I said Google it and see what other pros say. Here, I'll even post one for ya:

From:http://www.daveblackphotography.com/workshop/02-2009.html

"So why did I buy a D3X? Primarily for the unparalleled image quality in a 35mm camera, and that image quality leads to commercial /advertising jobs and sales which translates to commercial/advertising income, which far exceeds income from editorial day rates and in my opinion makes the additional cost of $3,100 (over a D3) a sensible business decision. The market place for your images is a major component in determining what camera you use. My work still includes editorial work of which the D3 or D700 reign supreme, but if I use a D3X to cover football, swimming, tennis etc, etc, my images will stand out as higher quality than those photographers I'm competing against for clients. My business now goes beyond editorial and includes commercial jobs and sales every month and the Nikon D3X will help me achieve the higher standard of excellence that is required for that end of the industry. The quality of detail that each D3X file produces is remarkable. For jobs that I use arena lighting, Speedlights, or Lightpainting, and even for my landscapes or nature images to excel in the market place, whether published or in print enlargements, I have always looked forward to the reality of medium format quality in a 35mm camera and the Nikon D3X does that for me.

**** But there are so many more like this all over the net from folks that OWN ONE. I am no longer living with blinders on though. That may make a difference. What you think?

"9. Squinting in a puny viewfinder or LCD on the back in bright sunlight is considerably worst then a lightbox. Ever look in an MF viewfinder?"

**** I won't be editing images captured on any puny viewfinder or LCD. I'll be editing on a big, wide 23 inch Apple monitor sitting back in comfort. And that sure beats squinting with one eye through a 4X loupe for hours at a time going blind...

"10. Airport goes through your laptop and handhelds too."

**** Bwaaaaahahaahahaaha .... Hey try handing over one laptop AND THEN try 100 rolls of film and request a hand-check rather than scanned. That was the worst one yet. Gotta love it.

"11. I had film in my Las Vegas garage 10 years - over 120degrees for over 6 months a year, showed no failure after I finished the roll and had it processed."

**** But when you pay up big bucks for special long photo trips and you then catch magical shots, you keep it cool anyway just to be sure. Know what I mean?

"12. Only a haole complains about honest work . . . ;-)"

**** Okay so you got me there. This "Haole" (Hawaiian term for white boy from mainland) wanting less work to capture more photos so he can spend less time working and more time on the beach with Mai Tai.

Hey, while I'm on the beach and capturing all those photos sipping Mai Tai's I'll think about you scanning.

Have fun.

Aloha!!

July 20, 2009

Larry Dressler writes:

"You have made your choice.... Move on Support your family. Let us who don't care have fun."

**** It sounds like you are asking me to leave. I would think that as slightly rude, if true.

"Would you carry some Velvia along your first trips alongside with the D3X for comparison of the same shot? I would love to see them side by side."

**** Yes, I will compare both side by side and share details. But from all that I have seen and read and know already, I am convinced that this is the new direction. I can point to hundreds or thousands of pro photographers that have raved about the new digital world of photography.

And have the images to prove it.

The proof truly is already out there.

That all said, will a Nikon D3X image blow away an image captured with Velivia 50 film, high quality scanned and then printed? NO.

But it will likely be very close if not equal. And the process itself is far superior and simpler if one is doing this for a living.

I already mentioned I may never give up film altogether. I love Velvia 50. Seriously.

Have a good one.

Vince

July 20, 2009

I missed this one:

quote: "I am not even sure how to reproduce the colors in PS from a DSLR."

**** I agree nothing looks like an amazing colorful slide of Velvia 50 on the lightbox.

But remember, Mauro, you still have to SCAN THAT SLIDE. You never get that slide's amazing colors and richness once it is scanned.

You LOSE a full generation through the scanning process alone.

I have used many scanners over the years before plopping down money for that $47,000 Eversmart Supreme II film scanner. And even with that YOU LOSE a lot from the original transparency itself. There is no way around it.

Which, again, only points me back into the direction of digital today because of the tremendous progress digital cameras have made overall during the past few years.

Just one man's .02...

July 20, 2009

Al I know is that very few people have used Velvia like I have over the years professionally for landscapes.

I simply love this film.

But anybody with eyes can see that today's digital cameras have improved to the point nowadays where one can easily match, if not surpass, what film can do overall. I have seen it again and again from other professionals today.

In the not too distant past digital images were too noisy, lacking dynamic range, could not produce large enough files for large printing etc. etc.

Not so any longer.

It's not just the fact that digital files are big, colorful and beautiful today. It's also the fact (for me) that you can avoid all the hassles that do come with using film. I already listed many of these in detail in my first comment here. A 4, 6, 8 or 16 gig memory card means you can just continue shooting until YOU are finished, and not because your 36 exposures (and far less if using medium or large format) film are finished.

It means no more lugging around 80-250 rolls of Velivia film for a shooting trip, keeping it cool, dealing with airport scanning and more.

It also means I can use 35mm gear, with the fastest and widest lenses available anywhere today. Take a look at how much you lose when using 6x7 gear or larger. Even 645 gear and lenses can't compare to 35mm in terms of speed and features.

It also means no more developing and film costs.

And as mentioned several times, though not mentioned in anybody's replies here that I have seen, the greatest reason for a switch is the complete elimination of scanning and all the time/hassles/cleaning that comes with it!

That is no small thing here folks. Scanning is a real deal breaker for some.

I cannot think, as a professional that supports himself solely on my photography, of any good reason to stay with film any longer.

And I love my Velvia 50. And for those that stick with film as a hobby or that do not mind all the time involved with scanning and costs with shooting/developing film professionally, I say good for you.

If somebody could beat me in the argument, I'd stick with film too. Heck, I've already got a great setup to do just that.

But take a look at the best of the best in landscape photography today, and probably 90 percent are shooting digital today, because the digital process is just that much better.

And now, adding to a better process, finally, many are admitting that the digital image itself is at least every bit as good if not better than film.

As good an image, and a better, faster more affordable, less hassles process just seems to make sense.

I will probably always keep my F5 and keep my hand in film to at least some degree. But when it comes to making a living and doing this on a daily basis I just can't see any good reason to stay away from the digital world of photography any longer. And trust me guys, I have sure tried.

Thanks for the interchange.

July 20, 2009

"Is your scanner up for sale?"

**** Are you kidding me. I'll be scanning old stuff your years to come. It takes a lot of time to scan large files, as you must know.

But when I do sell it, I'll be sure to call you first.

I'll check back on this later, am heading out for a bit.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by vincetylor