van_camper

"First off, Van, thank you so much for proving exactly what I was saying. I was, in all honesty, trying to get a civil dialogue going about how maybe we could all be a little nicer to each other, and how maybe (just maybe), chill out when the moderators do what they think is best to make sure that the site is a constructive place for the people who PAY to support it (oh no he di-int)! Glad I was able to get a live demo of what I'm talking about right here in my own post!"

 

TM, I am not even talking about topics deleted for being UNCIVIL, but rather topics deleted which were following all the rules (not off topic, not insulting, etc). I am talking about people who volunteer their free time, and yet receive no credit or respect in return, and instead got deleted because the moderator/administrator is unhappy with the opinion given (not good enough apparentlyﾅshees, what do you expect for free?) . With this attitude, I think you can expect some unhappy individuals in here, because it shows lack of appreciation. If you think we will continue to write, and keep getting deleted under these conditions, then realize were not that stupid, and will leave. In other words, "yu wanna get picky, yu might get nothin".

 

 

Two quick examplesﾅﾅ.ﾅﾅ Case -1ﾅﾅ a person had a difficult time writing in English, wrote a lengthy opinion, it was understandable, no one complained, no insults, and on topicﾅyet the moderator deleted it. This shows disrespect, time is money for everyone, this person could have just as easily been watching TV, printing, spent more time with his family. Who wants to stick around at a party when they are not welcome (this person left)! Case-2 ﾅﾅ I was in a thread where the person had a problem downloading his images from his dslr to his computer. My comment was "which is why I prefer film". The moderator wrote backﾅ.."I'm deleting your thread from the Digital Cameras, Including Point & Shoot and Shopping forum. This is not a useful post. Someone has a problem and needs help - if you can't provide help, please refrain from posting. " Come on, I was making a point, was this hard to understand, off topic, insulting? Perhaps it was just too short, but it was not nearly as bad as the next example. A pro woman photographer shooting weddings wanted advice on what to wear. Some guy answered "wear your camera". This is definitely wrong, sexist, and much moreﾅ.. yet was never deleted! Was this a useful post?

 

As for your comment about my not monetarily supporting this site, that is my decision, not yours. Don't get the idea the membership fee is unaffordable, just I would rather spend it on film. If you are benefitting, then contribute, but I don't get much value back and spend time answering rather then asking questions. If the moderator feels there was no contribution, or helpful advice in the past, then delete my name, and erase all my hundreds of hours of comments/opinions that have been written if they are so useless. Who is benefitting here for free? Wow! Notice the advertising, someone is cashing in on our time and efforts, and if they can't survive, who cares! They certainly do not care about us and the time we waste in here for their benefit, and they certainly do not care about my business! With the nice comment by Lex below, I've decided minimal contribution is best. Lex, that means hit the remove button.

 

"Freedom of Speech = Anything I say.

Censorship = Anything you say about anything I say."

 

I don't thinks so Lex (or should I say boss)! Straight you your face I could tell you where to go, and I'm sure some other people did not appreciate it either. I have to ask, where you drinking when you wrote that, thinking it was funny? Where is your judgement, or do you just not see you are irritating others on with that comment.You got a limit too , which is set by us! See yu!

Regarding flat images, first learn how to print, rather then blame the camera. I never get a perfect image out of my D200 either, but with some PS work the prints are amazing. It surprises me how few people understand color theory, how to make a fine print, but blame the mfr right away and are soon out shopping for a better camera and later giving us an expert opinion of the camera their dissapointed with. It's usually the photographer, not the camera at fault.

"It's a fine line, and there are always some people who are going to find the PN policies unacceptable. But that is the glory of the internet, if you really can't stand this site you can go find another that suits you better. And if there isn't another site out there that does what you want, you can create your own site with rules that you decide are best. THAT is what free speech and lack of censorship is all about. "

 

Josh, that's like shooting your mouth off to a customer....all it does is hurt the business, it certainly does not encourage me to contribute financially. I have been deleted twice recently, more then I wanted, and it was on topic, not insulting, but what I thought was good conversation, or making a point that the moderator perhaps found boring. But okay, it's your site, but it also costs me in time/energy to contribute, and this extra level of censorship I have never experienced before (or at another site) is equivalent to telling me to shut-up (it's insulting, provoking, and apparently others are also getting angry about this)...... to me it represents more importantly a loss of freedom of speech, and also a lack of appreciation for the work done. The above comment I feel is very arrogant and implies photonet is doing us all a big favor! Well, wake up, without our contributions you would be nothing, gone! I would suggest you delete your own comment for a change, and show some respect! I can take it or leave it, so can many others. Like shopping, if I don't like one store, I go to another, and I still get my goods.Your comment is rediculous and unprofessional! As for the topic of deletions, remember, we also have a power button that we can use when administrators/moderators get out of line called "see yu".

 

"Meanwhile, we'll just keep moving along as we have always done" . Yup, right, your advertisers I assume pay by customer base size perhaps? Remember, we make free contributions in here, we're not writing for a magazine or newspaper......expect gentleman behaviour, but not perfect spelling, co-ordination, concise writing, etc. You get rough copy, and you can't expect anything more.

"According to these folks, for the exception of the slow ultra fine grained films, digital has over taken 120 in terms of image detail."

 

Only in the smallers format, and only if you can afford the huge price discrepancy, and only while both film and digital are outputting at 300ppi output resolution, after which digital starts interpolating while film just keeps on going and going (wins on large prints).....check out luminous landscape articles. So for a 10mp camera, I prefer my 6x7, and I can enlarge to 24x30 easily, while my D200 poops out.

120 will be around. Amateurs may think film is going out, because they are perfectly happy with their little dslr. But to get into high quality, can you afford $40k just for a digital back (P45)? Digital has its place in the commercial sector (where high volume can justify a $40k digital back paid back in 1-2 yrs). It also offers time savings, instant feedback. On the other hand, a lot of pro landscape photographers shoot a few rolls a week (waiting for the right place and light), and depreciation is a killer. Both film and digital have their place. 120 is not disappearing. In fact low at the new mfrs coming to market ....Goaersi, Fotoman, Chamonix, and all are producing 612,617 as well as 4x5, 8x10. Even Linhof has updated their technica with a 2000 and 3000 in the last few years, as well as the technorama pano camera. That tells me a lot of guys are shooting film, and a lot of larger 120 formats. Only the smaller formats like 6x6 are getting hit by digital, because a cheap dslr is closely approaching the same quality output. Once the average consumer amateur is satisfied, the pixel war may be over in this market, but will likely continue in the pro market well beyond th 39mp P45 back to satisfy pro needs. But those prices will stay HIGH! Apparently pricing is based on amount in film/processing savings over a course of a year, and value added in convenience, time, etc.....not on actual cost plus profit margin approach.

"As I do mostly portrait/people, things could have changed in those couple of seconds that I cannot observe. "

 

I believe in viewfinders, which is why I went with the Horseman FA with zoom finder (inc 612 back for extra speed, although the format is too long for portraits), and the Fotoman 617 with finder for landscapes. Between these two, I feel I have a big advantage over many photographers. In portraits I can see the changes during loading film, in landscapes (before sunrise and after sunset) I can compose easily using the finder only...try that on the groundglass, especially if your lens is f/8 and low light. Even if I need tilts and need to use the groundglass, the finder helps find the composition accurately in low light. For tallships, I can follow the movement, etc. Of course at close distances (portraiture), longer lenses are used, depth of field is shallow, so a string for distance consistancy can help, and use the viewfinder to adjust composition between shots.

"What the time has come, nobody is "PHOTOGRAPHER", all are graphics people who can edit and enhance pictures on computers,

 

 

Pankaj, I use a camera to get my image, so I am a photographer. Before we use wet darkrooms, and so did the graphics business to create their images. Darkroom went to digital for everyone, but the final product, types of images, are far different. I also don't write Kellogs Corn Flakes over the top of my image.

I think the photographer had some hard refreshments during the shoot not to notice this. You can clone the wall to replace what is missing at the bottom, otherwise, just crop (no detail to work with).<div></div>

Hmmmm......is this thread closed? I get the comment ENOUGH ALREADY,

adjust and resubmit. My comment certainly wasn't very long.

"The point is that film is not as expensive as some are lead to believe, and digital costs more than some realise"

 

Jack, good point. Guys like Ken Duncan are regularly finding one single image brings them in $300k in sale. A negative in a film sleeve will always be there to scan. What happens if your digital file goes corrupt, operating systems change and are no longer supported. Multiple hard drive backups/cd backups mean nothing if it is no longer supported.

 

For important stuff I will stick to film (more archival), I don't have to keep updating my backups, worry if it will read, and you cannot touch the quality of larger film unless your willing to pay 20x more for digital.

"When the 5DmkII makes it appearance I will seriously consider dumping my MF gear since it will equal 6x7, "

 

Marek, only true as long as both can print at 300ppi output resolution (1440 dpi). After a cxetain print size film takes over, and keeps on going due to much bigger file size to maintain the 300ppi output. With 6x7 I was really surprised the quality of a 42.5 inch print I had made (Nikon 9000 scanner), the dslr would run out of gas (pixels). Add some noise removal software, and the images are superb. But as long as both can print at 300ppi without interpolation, then I doubt you see a difference in smaller prints.

 

When you want very high quality, film is the only choice and very affordable for initial investment.

Lot of problems, but gave it a try.<div></div>

"If you're going to put years into learning something, why not choose the

technology that will still be around years from now when you're retired? Film isn't

going to go away completely, but it will be a smaller and smaller percentage of the

business each year."

 

Not true, you have high volume users who don't mind high priced digital gear (they

can justify it in film/processing over a short time). They can afford the best digital

gear ($40K for a p45 39mp back). Then there are the professionals doing

landscape. These are the low volume shooters (maybe a few rolls every few days

because they are waiting for the perfect conditions), and low priced gear (large

format) and maximum quality from big film is their priority (5x7, 8x10 can't be

matched). You can summarize the markets as follows:

 

(High End digital Backs/ Scan backs)- Commercial high volume shooters, pays

for itself in 1-2 yrs in film/processing. Want fast turnaround. Very high quality.

Price is no object, quality is. Time is money for these guys.

 

(Med-High priced dslr)- wedding shooters, amateurs, journalist, serious amateurs,

etc. Anything from Nikon D300 , D3, or Canon equivalent. For the few times they

need more quality, they pull out a few sheets of 4x5 film for the view camera.

 

(Low priced digital) ﾖ real estate agents, family snaps, wanting cheap prints (do

at home on computer or direct from printer), business people wanting a quick

snapshot, holiday snaps, sports photos (surfing, etc). Prefer to process

themselves direct to printer, or using photoshop.

 

(Film- small format)- people not into computers (uncomfortable around digital

imaging), prefer bringing in their

film to a small lab or Wallmart while they shop. You won't convince them of digital

while they have old reliable 35mm film. You have a very large market age 50+ that

do not feel comfortable around digital cameras. You just don't dump this market

that was brought up on film!

 

(Film- Med format film) ﾖ landscape, portraits, where high quality is required. I

expect this format to be very strong in 6x9,612,617 formats. New int roductions in

the Technorama by linhof, new mfrs like Fotoman, Goaersiﾅ.are making these

120 formats popular.

 

(Film- large format)- art market, where maximum quality is desired, pro market

(where low volume and top quality is required). This breed is also not dead, linhof

Technica has been updated twice (2000 and 3000 model), and new mfrs like

Fotoman, Goarsi, Chamonix, and many more have appeared in the marketplace.

China is very heavy into large format now.

 

This market segmentation process is not complete, not necessarily 100%

accurate (Just some quick ideasﾅresearch brings better results), but you get the

ideaﾅ.different markets have different needs. Film satisfies one set of needs, and

digital another. New product developments in film and equipment support this.

What I believe is happening is a rebalancing, digital came to the market, but it

cannot replace film completely because it cannot satisfy all the different needs

different people have. A pro who shoots a commercial job (McDonalds) doesn't

care if the image survives 2 years, but an artist doesﾅ.he is building a portfolio to

retire on. His art career depends on his portfolio being around (here digital is not

archival, but film isﾅ.satisfying a different need).

 

I recommend you write down your needs/criteria. Do you want to do only

landscape, or portraits? Do you want to print big? Are you interested in top

quality, with immense color saturation, incredible sharpness? Do you want to

produce fine art (then larger format cameras are the only choice for max quality, at

your age I doubt you have $40k in loose change for high end digital). Do you want

maximum archivability? Each camera is suited for a different purpose, just like

digital and film suit a different purpose. I realize your new to photography, but age

isn't the criteria, it is what you want/can afford (film equipment gives absolutely the

best quality and at 1/2oth the cost. If you want to do top quality landscape, think

big film, and camera movements. Medium format doesn't cut it for me, it is in

between 2 worlds (you are investing not just into the camera, but lenses and other

accessories). Sony is within a year or so (already announced) introducing a

25mp sensor, making 6x7 less desirable.

 

Also, where does everyone get the idea film is expensive? I have been using film

all my life, film/processing costs never bothered me. Its just that digital is free in

the short run that makes it sound expensive (because we get stupid shooting 150

shots when I use to only need 3 to capture the perfect landscape after

bracketing). But in the long run my Nikon D200 I found was fun for a while, but

couldn't even come close to my 6x7/6x9/4x5/612/617 filmﾅthe great shots I got I

could not enlarge enough, quality wasn't there (not even close), and I worry how

long they will last (media changes, operating systems change and support is lost,

reading errors, storage failure). How many times do you read in here I cannot

READ the camera card/ or other read error? I just put my film in polypropylene

Calumet sleeves in Calumet Safe Keeper 3 ring binders and never need to worry

30 yrs from now. Flatbed scanners only get better, so you will always have a way

to scan your film.

 

If your thinking strictly landscape, you might consider a Fotoman 612 camera

(new about $1100 for body) if you're into wide and normal focal length lenses. A

couple of lenses and your all set, itﾒs the cheapest and easiest large format

camera to use! The Mamiya RB67 has a prism finder, but the camera is bigger,

heavier, and 6x7 just doesn't cut it for landscape, and will become obsolete with

talks of the Sony 25mp sensors announced (likely out 1 yr from now). The 120

film for 612 is easier to get processed compared to 4x5 (same quality), no need

to load sheet film/use darkcloth/focus on groundglass like with 4x5, film available

in many camera stores, easy to shoot, has a depth of field scale(hyperfocal also),

with VIEWFINDER, handles like a big 35mm rangefinder camera, easier to

process yourself (and cheaper to process)ﾅIMMENSE quality, very portable. It

will scan easily with higher quality using a flatbed, and also you can rent digital

stations at $35/hr on a Mac with a Imacon 848. The quality would be matched

closely only by a $40k p45 digital back! For portraits choose something else.

Check out Ken Duncans website (except he uses a 617 format) if your into

landscapes, these pano cameras are what he uses. http://www.kenduncan.com/

 

Good luck.

 

Just taking a practical view, I find it hard to fathom that one would be able to take anything candidly using a 4x5 these days, considering the attention they tend to grab wherever they are used.

 

Why not? I do it with my Horseman FA with zoom finder. No different then hand holding my Fotoman 617, and same settings.Just forget long lenses. I use it for 90 and 150 only.

"Just to throw in this idea: if the grain density of films can affect the bokeh (e.g. Fujifilm Astia vs the old Kodak Gold 100), why can't the pixel density do likewise " Arthur Yeo

 

Nonsense, what has film got to do with it? Bokeh is an optical thing.

"I noticed that the best landscape pictures showing lakes and sea have the water without waves (diffused and tinted) and I would like to know the techniques or an article on the subject. "

 

Really? I am in the opposite camp. Check out Philip Plisson (marine photogapher).

 

http://commerce.sage.com/plisson/?__sgx_action=EComFamilySection.showItemFamily('41')

Wow, 5 problems now! Maybe also too big, or in wrong color?

"The pictures were not nearly as sharp as my 4.5 megapixel point and shoot camera, which Mamiya said was because point and shoot camera's have a special software built into the camera"

 

They were right, you were wrong. No one said you were stupid about photography (traditional), but your comments suggest you are totally unfamiliar with digital gear too compare it with a 4.5 mp "point and shoot"...wow....why not at least a good dslr, or did you never have one?

 

You might be right and it is defective, but I get the feeling you didn't give it a chance, and if it were defective, why didn't you exchange for another new one? Instead, you use something for free for a week, and leave the retailer/mfr hanging with a return item that must be sold as refurbished. I find it interesting if your so knowledgeable that you only registered today at photonet to complain.

 

"Even when I sharpened the Mamiya picture with software the $100.00 point and shoot was still sharper. " Yeh, right, that is absolutely rediculous. I find your comments insulting, Edward is not the only one finding your comments irritable. You need another camera from Wallmart, there you can return all you want, get yourself a nice sharp 10mp point-and-shoot.

"how do you desaturate only those 2 channels? (apart from the tints in colortone/saturation)"

 

Go to curves, adjust any channel

Best to buy a cheapo and find out what your qaulity needs are.

Craig, just letting yu know for $15 you can get a really fine image, that can surpass any consumer flatbed. You can get pro quality cheap. Not saying the consumer flatbed does not have a purpose, because I also have a cheap Epson 4990 that I like. But the OP says he is dusting off his 4x5, so yu may as well not waste money, go for the best approach.

You only send out your best work, so convenience is not a real issue.

Craig,

 

1. The Creo IQ3 is $20,000 plus tax, yours is $700. The Microtek is a

toy! That's why. You can't compare. Both running dry....no

comparison. M1 gets spanked!

 

 

2. Pros have been sending out for scans, printing, and other

services for years to get the "best" prices to stay in business.

Don't like it, don't do it.

 

3. A 300mb file produces suberb 30x40 inch prints from a pro

scanner outputting at 300ppi (1440dpi printer). Th 600mb file

from a M1 is meaningless, because it can't print that big with

any kind of quality. The M1 may resolve 2400ppi, but not quality

pixels. There is more to it then resolution. That 2400ppi file won't

look nearly as good as a 2040ppi file from a Imacon 848 for 4x5...not

even close. The Imacon costs 20x more for a reason.

 

4. Spending $100 on min order gives you almost 7 images, where is

the problem? Shees....find out what a drum scan costs first. See

what quality work looks like, then tell me if your M1 is a match. Get

a Creo scan made, then be prepared to use your M1 for a doorstop.

 

5. A consumer flatbed is useful for editing before sending out for a

real scan when you want large fine art prints. If all you want is up

to 11x14 (occasional 16x20), the mM is fine. But you will still see

differences.

 

This is why we have Nikons, Imacons, drum scanners, pro flatbeds, and why pros are willing to spend big bucks. You get what you pay for.

Best quality is at 3x enlargement (a 4x5 film is good to 11x14 inches). But many are happy to 4x. Not just my opinion, do your homework. Of course it all depends on you quality standards. I wouldn't go past 16x20 from 4x5 on a cheap consumer flatbed.

 

I would send out to West Coast Imaging, they do flatbed scans from a Creo IQ3 (pro stuff) for only $15 dry (a lot more wet). You will be far more happy, and done by pros. A creo many argue surpass a Tango scan.

 

http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/services/scan/stockcreo.htm

Remember, each piece of equipment has its own thumbprint. Some hockey pucks for your monitor are warmer, some a bit cooler, some plain lousy. Each monitor is a bit different (not all are ISP panels to judge deep shadows), then your printers also have their own thumbprint. Canons are best at red, HP at green, so there will be mismatches. Your monitor is transmission, your prints reflective. We are lucky to get as close as we do. Add software issues, and even soft proofing is not perfect. Then we have color spaces to deal with. What you see on the monitor might not always be possible. The nice reds on the monitor might look great on a Canon, and weaker on others. The greens on a HP might not be possible on another printer. Don't blame yourself, this stuff is not rocket science, blame the imperfections in your equipment. Considering not all of us buy the best gear (especially monitors), were lucky to get as close as we do.

 

 

 

 

.

West Coast imageing can do a drum scan, or a pro flatbed scan on their Creo IQ3, but with 8x10 film you can do a pretty darn good job with a Epson flatbed and get a great 30"print on the long side, even 40 inch should look really good. It may not have the shadow detail that you get from a Creo scanner, but then again you don't get that kind of detail when you do traditional enlarging (unless you use masking).

 

I would go with a Epson, unless you need really big prints. Most in here do just that. It seems to be the only format that gets us away from the biggest problem....buying expensive pro scanners.

 

T Feltus, that is funny that a lab would recommend cutting up the 8x10 film before scanning. I think I would deal elsewhere with imporant images. I wouldn't be surpirsed they would open up your digital camera looking for the film inside.