david_henderson

Tried and failed a couple of times today. Can anyone help please?

San Quirico Tuscany

I regard it as important that those viewing a response can easily see the credentials of the poster so that they can assess the value of the advice they are given. With the last site it was easy for me to see whether someone had a personal website and link to it, and for them to see and link to mine. How is this possible with this version please? Its useful because not everyone chooses to operate a portfolio on Photo.net. On the last site there was one place I could go to for all the information anyone could want to access on any member- their workspace, accessed by clicking on their name. Is the new site the same in this respect, and as simply accessed? I find it useful in responding to questions to be able to access information in posts I've made in the past and indeed posts others have made in the past. I can't work out how to access the entirety of my and others' posts on this version. All I've seen so far is ( in my case at least) the most recent couple of hundred. "notable members" is not a useful way to assess the value of someone's contribution to photo.net as it just counts posts which is visible elsewhere and lacks a quality dimension. The previous array of "winners" "moderators" and heroes" was much more useful. Has it gone? There seem to be several places where one might add information about oneself. But its not clear- to me at least- where I should add data that I want others to see if they look. Further as others point out, data added isn't saving. I don't understand the difference in intent between a "new post " and a "new profile post".

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Meanwhile the standard of photography - as measured by the number of people able to make good photographs, show these to others and get good, affordable prints of their work- has increased markedly. </p>

<p>Back in my medium format days, slides were the strongly preferred medium amongst the landscape photography community of which I was a part. The projected slide was held to be the epitome of all that we did in terms of spectacle and showing ones work, selecting for books ( if you were one of the chosen), choosing which were to be printed, and so on. And in general it wasn't just slides, it was probably Velvia or if not then Provia, for their saturated colour and making the most of the tonality of "golden hour", and often with plenty of polariser too. And there were some upsides in that you got to see the final "version" as soon as you had your slides processed, and integrity insofar as that all the work was done behind the camera and the slide was in essence unalterable. </p> <p>Of course there were downsides that one began to realise. The "palette" was very strong and pretty much uncontrollable- you got some pretty weird colours in low light. The dynamic range wasn't actually enough a lot of the time. The films were slow and wind speed a constant issue especially when using a polariser. Scanning was problematical, whether you did it or you got a lab to do it , and it was almost rare to find an affordable source that could give you scans that would stand scrutiny against the original slide. Analogue lab printing was expensive, became harder to find, and trying to get a match with the slide was a bit of a pastime for all of those involved. Printing Cibas at home was difficult and with varying results. When hybrid (drum scan and print on a LightJet) became available I got some great prints from West Coast Imaging in particular but they were very expensive and took an age- both of these not helped by the need to fedex materials across the Atlantic in my case.</p> <p>So with the benefit of hindsight I'm not sure that what I ( and plenty of others) was doing was optimal. I wonder now why I didn't switch to neg film but I didn't have those thoughts in say 1997 . Don't get me wrong, I don't think that getting prints made from colour negs is a bed of roses either because the reference point is less clear. And making prints with the sheer vibrance and intensity that you could get on a good Velvia print wouldn't have been easy. </p> <p>So that's how things were. I think they're better now. </p> <p> </p>

<p>I agree that in good hands either the scan or the neg should be capable of producing a good print of between 7"x 5" and A4. If you have a lab in mind I'd talk to them about what options they offer. As I said, there's no mileage in handing them a neg for them to scan again at your cost in order to make the print. </p>

<p>It will depend how good the scans are.</p> <p>It will depend what size prints you want to make from what size originals (35mm??) </p> <p>It will depend on how good the lab is at making prints from negs and from scans. If you choose negs you better make sure that the lab doesn't scan as a matter of course rather than making traditional analogue prints- particularly for fairly small prints. </p> <p>In short there is no universal answer to your question "which is better, scan or neg for prints. Prints from negs are not automatically better than prints from scans . The best prints I've ever seen from my work have been from scans. But they were from slides; they were very large prints; I needed absolute repeatability; and I started from 6x6 originals. I don't think that any of that will apply to you </p>

<p>I know this is an old thread, but I should add that Pro Labs are essentially set up to look after business from professionals who are registered for VAT and who can claim it back. They are not generally that geared up for mail order business and operate mainly over the counter. The fact that they tend to have near city centre premises, and operate face-to-face has some speed and customisation benefits. But not even their mothers would say they are the cheapest !</p> <p>Many trade -orientated businesses across many sectors in the UK identify VAT separately and add it to the order. Businesses offering a service to consumers rarely if ever do that. </p>

<p>Anything described as a "scenic turnout" or similar is never scenic , and is often completely surrounded by planted trees so as to completely obscure the view.</p>

<p>Looked at it on a PC with 24" screen. No scrolling necessary. Thumbnails and menu options visible. Different on an iPad mini though- need to scroll to otherwise invisible menus and thumbnails are not visible so the only visible option is the arrow to take you through the portfolio. Might not work so well if you have a lot more pictures or more galleries.</p> <p>Otherwise, like the photography, like the palette. </p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Robin raises an interesting point. On several occasions recently I've had a response typed to someone stating "digital b&w sucks"(I paraphrase), only to fail to post because I don't want to start a debate that's ultimately pointless but also because I don't want to divert the direction of a thread and spoil it. One of these reasons I support this suggestion is that it will increase the emphasis on the photograph, and not its medium of origin and the dogma that lies behind it. </p> <p>Back when I used b&w film I joined APUG. I didn't stay too long because there were too many people who saw that site as a platform for throwing rocks at everything digital- beyond the point of objectivity. I hold my traditional b&w work and my more recent digital b&w in broadly equal regard.</p>

<p>Good idea</p>

<p>I looked very hard at Sony A7 mirrorless last time I bought a Canon 5D body. Clearly the weight/size reduction is limited if I continued to use my satisfactory f4 Canon L zooms, plus whatever adapter is necessary to secure similar operation the those lenses on the 5D.</p> <p>The surprising thing was that the dedicated Sony zoom lenses weigh as much as my Canons. By the time I bought the new lenses, new filters, rings etc and whatever RRS might want to sell me so I can continue to use my tripod head with a Sony, you could be looking at the most expensive small scale weight and size reduction you could ever imagine. </p> <p>Of course I'm not valuing the increased resolution terribly highly. That's because I'm not unhappy where I am and also because Canon have places I could go on the 5D to achieve that without any lens changes at all. What I really wanted was a significant weight and size drop without losing quality or functionality, to keep me carrying a quality camera system around for another 5 years or so, and at a total cost to change that is reasonable in the context of what I got from it. And I concluded I wasn't going to get those with the current Sony lens offer. </p> <p>You obviously get different views of lightness and size depending where you start out. I note that Edward has a Sony system weighing over 20lbs. My bag with a FF Dslr and zooms already weighs less than that. But he started out with large and heavy Nikon zooms and a fistful of primes. I didn't, so I'm going to be harder to please. </p>

<p>I have to say that I'm sort of intrigued by the "copy stand" idea if it can give the same or better quality of results as a film scanner ( resolution and Dmax ) from my colour slides. But this is what puzzles me. </p> <p>If this is such a great idea why hasn't it been picked up commercially instead of all the belt & braces kind of homespun solutions I see people on here talking about? I mean pretty much all you need is a device to hold a camera solidly and pointing vertically down in an indoor environment, together with a light source and a holder suitable for each film size, right? Given that there's quite a lot of interest in film scanners but few being made, why isn't this opportunity being seized commercially? And the supply of competent film scanning from photographers and labs at good prices seems to be drying up. A few years ago I sold my film scanner because I could buy cleaned Imacon scans better than my Coolscan 9000 could do for little over £5 each and I don't like scanning and the post processing much at all. Harder to find now. So less competition. Why isn't someone marketing a $200 kit that works all the time and which you can erect with certainty in 5 mins? </p> <p>Whilst this is a cottage industry people like me won't touch it. I don't want to search out and select copy stands (never knowingly been near one and couldn't make the right choice) or an enlarger ( they're things my lab used). A kit that comes in a box I can keep in a corner of my office would suit me so much better! </p>

<p>Probably the biggest reason that scanning is still required is that's the way the lab makes the print today. For the most part anyway. And if you're starting from a slide its pretty much the only way since the main analogue routes to making prints from slides were discontinued years ago. Making an analogue print is the exception rather than the rule, but some of us can still buy C type printing or b&w hand prints if we look hard enough and are happy to pay.</p> <p>My experience in getting "standard" ( ie cheap as possible) prints bigger than proof size from labs is very variable. Sometimes OK, sometimes awful. They're most often made on mini-labs, involve a scan and you have to hope that the machine is set up and managed well and that there is some degree of manual scrutiny in the process. There will be a size limit beyond which you can't use the cheap/minilab route. I think most could handle 12" x 8"; but only some could manage 16" x 12"</p> <p>Once you step into the realms of quality printers like Lambda, LightJet, ----</p> <ul> <li>It will require a scan, period. The quality of that scan will drive the quality of the print to a very large extent. The scan can be made by that lab, by a scanning service or another lab, or by you at home. </li> <li>Turning the scan into a print file is another part of the process that's critical to print quality</li> <li>You get a number of decisions to make. Like RA4 or Inkjet printing; this drives the type of machine used. Like what paper. </li> <li>IMO the average consumer would not generally be able to make these decisions optimally or play a useful part in the print process- they just don't have the experience to deal with these things and would end up just passing the neg/transparency over the counter and leaving it to the lab. </li> </ul> <p>Are we getting any closer to what you want?</p> <ul> <li> </li> </ul>

<p>I have a desktop and use a powered USB hub. Never caused an issue AFAIK and useful to avoid crawling around under my desk to find a spare USB port on the tower. </p>

<p>I must admit here that I'm picking out the question I'd like to answer rather than being convinced that I get what the OP is after.</p> <p>Mr Moran, above indicates he can get a sharp 18" x 12" from a 9cm x 6cm original on a consumer flatbed printer. I think that's about dead on from my experience, which tells me that I can get a good 12" sq print from 6x6, using the Betterscan holder and AN glass. I'd also comment as below.</p> <ul> <li>I could get a little bigger than 12" sq. from my V700, But above that point the difference between the flatbed scan and a film scan - in terms of detail and dmax, becomes increasingly obvious and if I want a quality print larger than 12" sq. I'll tend to think of a better scanner rather than how far I can push the flatbed.</li> <li>I have no experience of this myself, but various people have said on here that they bigger and better prints from wet mounting on certain flatbeds. </li> <li>I don't think you can compare the standard lab scan ( from a dev and scan package for example) of MF film with even a flatbed scan you've made yourself, carefully. The latter will tend to be a lot better. That said, that same lab might well make superior scanning offers on different machines entirely. There's really no conclusion you can draw about a lab scan unless you say what it is and what its been made on. </li> <li>I can get a bigger, better print from a FF Dslr (5Diii) than I can get from Medium format on a flatbed. But some of that size advantage is down to format rather than file quality, and if I wanted a <em><strong>square</strong></em> print, there's not a great deal in it. I also feel that the process of file prep is far, far easier from a digital original. If I have a problem squeezing out the last bit of sharpness when enlarging a file a little, getting colours as I want them, or getting detail in shadows nicely, Its likely to be when I'm working on a scan from a colour transparency. </li> <li>That said, the best large prints ( and the largest prints) I've ever seen from my work came from drum scans of medium format transparencies. They were far better, sharper, and more repeatable than anything I ever got from traditional means of getting prints from slides. I never felt comfortable with bigger than 18" sq from x 6x6 transparency using enlargers and quality labs, but I was happy with 36" sq from a drum scan. There is no doubt in my mind that there is more information in MF film than there is in a photograph from my Dslrs at least (of course I can't speak for Dslrs I haven't got, or MF digital where I have no experience). </li> <li>When trying to draw conclusions on the print potential of film vs digital, scanned or not, I think you really need to specify what sort of film. My entire meaningful experience in this area involves colour transparencies. I might conclude differently had I been getting large prints made from a colour negs or b&w. </li> </ul>

<p>Yes I can limit myself to b&w, but not over a long period because I find some locations/objectives clearly suit either colour or b&w to my mind. I have visited Paris, New York, parts of desert USA with a very clear objective of photographing them in b&w. I have been to other locations with an intention of shooting in colour to find weather conditions that suited b&w a lot better and adopted a focus on b&w on the hoof. On the other hand I have used colour & b&w in parallel on lots of shoots, making the decision shot by shot.</p> <p>There are a large number of classic photographers who chose to limit their work -or their serious work anyway- to b&w. You might want to ask whether the likes of Michael Kenna or Ansel Adams - and there are lots of others of equal stature- found a focus on b&w photography an unnecessary strait -jacket. I'm far from convinced that these guys fret or fretted too much about whether they'd remembered to pack the colour film. </p> <p>On this issue I think the choice of film or digital is not relevant. I enjoy making digital photographs destined to be b&w as much as I did when I shot b&w film. The only difference is that now I could change my mind between shooting and finalising the photograph but I don't do that very often. </p>

<p>I used to buy photo. magazines. Not any more - well maybe one a year or thereabouts. I can fill the gap they used to fill quite happily online-sites or Youtube. The most popular US mags were always pretty much useless anyway- the UK magazines were quite a bit better but even that hasn't been enough to interest me now. </p> <p>I think the world's moved on, and certainly my life is different in many ways now from a decade or two ago. Then I'd take a couple of mags on a photo trip. These days, my wife comes along and all the hotels have WiFi and I have Netflix, downloads of favourite series, and a host off links to web-sites pertinent to where I am or travelling to. I used to buy a mag to get through the train journey to/from London. I do that less today and anyway I have the iPad and free newspapers at the station. There's no gap for photo.mags to fill. </p> <p>And I'd rather spend time researching a new location than read a mag that tells me about where I can stand shoulder to shoulder with countless photographers and tourists. Especially I'd rather look at a great portfolio/website I didn't know before. Stuff that makes me jealous gets me thinking. </p>

<div></div>

<p>Just post some great photographs. Or better yet great photographs supporting a great idea. Organise it coherently so the photographs you see together look like they belong together, not just a jumble of individual images that bear no relation to each other. </p>