ant_nio_marques

<p>JDM, I'm not sure what you mean by an hour or two. I've been forced to use the Gimp regularly for the last 9 years (it hasn't improved an inch in all that time, by the way). It's got little 16-bit support, zero operating system integration, buggy UI toolkit, clunky ways to do almost everything, no advanced tooling at all, you name it. I'm not even counting the fact that it is slow, because every software can be. There is absolutely nothing it does well among the few things that it does. Obviously, if you only need two or three primitive operations and get used to the way they are performed, then you'll be able to use it. As I have been. Because I'm not doing serious work with it, only some little bits of things I can't do with Paint.net, which is miles ahead in terms of UI but has even less features. Did I mention that the latest version's installer for Windows 7 x64 has been broken for months?</p> <p>I'd love to be able to speak highly of the Gimp, but I can't. I've been thru too many years of expecting the *next* version to solve some of the most arcane problems.</p> <p>Not only is the Gimp not the answer, it will never be. It's a dead end. Unless, of course, they redo everything from scratch, but then that wouldn't be the Gimp we're talking about. (By the way, the… questionable... choice of name is theirs.)</p> <p>Have you tried to do stuff with ImageMagick? It has no UI, but I often find it rewarding. Of course, there are many things a UI-less program by its nature cannot do.</p> <p>(A UI toolkit is that software library that provides buttons, menus, icons, etc; the Gimp's is called GTK and was originally written for it but since put to better use by other applications; usually, an application doesn't have its own UI toolkit, rather using those provided by the operating system and hence looking and feeling as good as the rest of the system.)</p>

<p>PLEASE, HEADS UP, unless Joe made a mistake he's talking about scanning PRINTS, and the talk of what is or isn't 'raw' is neither here nor there.</p> <p>As far as I know, all that VS or SF offer (besides obviously being different programs) is the possibility to save infrared data to a separate channel, instead of 'flattening' the image with dust and scratch correction (correction can thus be experimented with later on). But that only matters for FILM scanning. You aren't supposed to be scanning prints (or B/W film that is not C41) with infrared. So I'd say that you are not losing anything in terms of the actual files produced.</p> <p>As to the format of the files produced, you are advised to use 16-bit TIFF with a large gamut colour space (ProPhoto?). I'm not sure if sRGB isn't enough, given we're talking about prints. Also, probably 300 dpi is enough, it's unlikely that your prints have more than that in them (but possible, I suppose, it can't hurt to go to 600 - if you use VS, try setting 2400 or whatever the second-highest value available is, and set 'reduction' to 4, and see if you like it better).</p>

<p>I said 'won't', not 'didn't'. That automatically makes it a prediction. What kind of data are you thinking of?<br> But who do you know, aside from the categories I mentioned, that is content with the 'deal'? What proportion of the purchasers of the non-subscription versions do they form?</p>

<p>But Tudor, you weren't forced to upgrade. You could keep using the old version forever. Yes, someone who did upgrade every year will not see costs climb much (if the current pricing stays as it is). But few people did upgrade every year. And for a rental, which is what it is currently, the price is obscene. Again, with my car example: the cost of renting a car for a year is *much* less than the cost of 'upgrading' to a new one each year. Here, you're saying the renting is cheeper than the former upgrade, but even then it's only marginally cheaper. And that's after the discount, because before that it was actually higher.</p> <p>Adobe can do this because a large part of their costumer base are enterprises or people who for professional reasons have to always use the latest version. All the others won't put up with it.</p>

What 'anything else'? What do you even mean by 'old scanners'? Did scanners at one point refuse to scan colour targets? Profiling negative film isn't the answer: film base colour will change with a variety of factors, emulsion 'model' is just one of them. Much the same holds for digital, for different reasons. Unless you're willing to shoot a target for each kind of real shot! You can certainly do it, if that's what makes you tick. Either way, you won't have something you can look at with your bare eyes and judge.

<p>Notice that Jens also mentioned he specifically does slide film. Part of his point seems (to me) that, in reality or in psychology, slide film is a 'real' image with 'real' colour. Whereas negative film or RAW digital is whatever you want it to be - freedom which can be nice but also enslaving, because there's no point at which you can say 'this is the actual image'. There is a real, objective, outside-the-photographer colour and contrast in slide (whether it is 'good' or 'optimal' or 'real' isn't the point, the point is that it is independent of the photographer) that doesn't exist in negative or digital.</p> <p>Oh, I like scanning too. Also because I've set a process which I don't have to tweak each time. It took me a lot before I had it sorted out, because I wanted to have a durable recipe. But I'm not a photographer.</p>

I know nothing of what you ask, but as for recommendations a number of Canon MFP come with a transparency unit to scan film (yes, I know your question isn't about scanning film).

<p>If we mention the Gimp, then there's Paint.net as well. PDN is missing a lot of stuff, but it can do simple edits! Yes, you can't do serious stuff with it, but neither can you with the Gimp.</p> <p>Regarding the 'nobody uses all the features'. well, the problem is that you need them to be there when you need to use them. It's like saying that Joe Sixpack doesn't need his photos enlarged to 100x50, or an f/1 lens, or the possibility to shoot a lot of frames per second. Yes, he doesn't need it for 99% of his photos, but the remaining 1% are the ones he will remember. When what is captured in a photo is great, then I want it to be as technically good as possible.</p> <p>The problem with image editors is that they are incredibly poor tools, given their age. Yes, they can do some things very well, but they don't make the basics simple. The basics are 16-bit, adjustment layers, smart selections and a normal sane UI that fits in with the rest of the operating system. Once they get this, then they can start adding things on top. Paint.net has the UI but none of the rest; the others have the rest but not the UI. The Gimp has none of these, despite having bits of all.</p>

<p>@Tudor but the non-subscription versions didn't stop working after a year. Compare a car: if you rent one for a year, you don't spend the same as if you bought a new one each year!</p>

<p>The contenders are Photoline and PaintShop Pro. And PhotoShop Elements.<br /> For LR kind of work there's Zoner Photo Studio.<br /> All have trial versions. I haven't tested them enough to have an opinion. Other than my opinion that they all leave a lot to be desired in terms of UI. Now, if they would focus on proper ergonomics instead of metal-kiddie-theming….<br> Edit: PhotoShop's UI is included in the 'all' ranted abut above.</p>

Any mirrorless system wil accept those lenses, tho in manual mode only, because their native flange focal distance is very short, so it's possible to build simple mechanical adapters for the mount. However, that's only of use if you do have the lenses! Or if your plan specifically is to build a system around old lenses. There's nothing wrong with that, but unless that is the plan, there is little to no advantage in doing it. For the very simple reason that Nikon or Canon offer all kinds of lenses, so you don't have to go hunting for exquisite old ones to do this or that thing that can not be done with Nikon or Canon lenses. Besides that, Canon EOS cameras can take a large number of old lenses too. Not nearly all, like mirrorless systems can, but many. Nikon in general can not. But why I'm saying is that I don't think this should be a big concern to someone who is starting now. If you do have access to a large selection of old lenses, then sure, go for the Sony. And I'm not saying the Sony isn't great. I'm just saying this is one particular merit of it that I don't think should be of much relevance.

<p>You really should go slow and be careful with this deal. Do you realise there may be customs duties to pay when the camera enters France? (That, however, is not the seller's fault, but if he's willing to cancel the transaction, then maybe that's the way to go.)</p> <p>Full frame has advantages, but I'm not sure they are image quality and sharpness. These days, the advantage of full frame has more to do with the geometrical properties of the size, specifically, than with the electronic image quality. That is, the advantage of full frame nowadays is more like the advantage of 4x5 film versus 120 film in the old days. Image quality, sure, but mainly the use that you can make of your lenses in what regards depth of field, bokeh properties, perspective, etc.</p>

<p>There should be an international found film database folks could browse!</p>

<p>Hi, Michael.<br> If you are having trouble, you should let ebay know. They sport that kind of things out.<br> As to the rest, I think the best for you would be to calm down a little and do a bit of research on the many options available. For instance, you seem adamant on wanting full frame, but you don't say why. But then you say you are thinking of getting the Sony, but how how can you be thinking of getting it and not know whether it is full frame or not? Before thinking you want something, it would be logical to know what it is!</p>

<p>An important point is that if you don't care about the medium itself, only the results, it makes little sense to shoot E6. Negative film is cheaper to buy, cheaper to develop, more tolerant of exposure and has better dynamic range. You can't go wrong with trying some tools of Ektar through your camera before doing anything else. A Canon 9000 flatbed, which can be considered not expensive, can give you at least 16mp from a 6x7.<br> Your lens lineup is very nice. I don't know, but with all those accessories, I think you can get noticeably more than $700 for it. Just sell separately, with a promise to combine postage!<br> David is more or less on the mark. The only bit is that in this range digital gear doesn't age so well as film gear: wheres you can keep your Bronica running a long time without expenditure, any full frame body you buy now second hand will be quite dated in a few years and worth much less. Digital is not a one-time cost.<br> Also, the lenses. How much need you spend to get the equivalent of what you have now?<br> How about sticking to what you have right now (and your negatives can be scanned today as well as 20 years from now), and starting a piggy bank to get a full frame digital in a couple of years? By then, what you get used will be better than what you find used now. Digital has come a long way, so used material is much better as time goes by, and there will come a time when used is as good as you need, while at the same time progress is so fast-paced that there will be plenty of people selling used material so they can get the latest stuff. (For me, who am not in need of anything special, the time has come to start looking for a used Pentax body - good enough for everything I may want - which wasn't the case years ago -, yet obsolete enough to be cheap.)</p>

BTW, with 5 lenses, you can sell your Bronica at a profit. Finder, lenses, backs sold separately will fetch high prices. What lenses are those? (obs: I am into the ETR system rather than yours.)

There are no budget full frame digital cameras. Full frame is still a premium feature.

<p>Note: the advice to create an image of the disc, instead of just copying the files, it's because 1. the image will be exactly what's on the source, whereas copying files is prone to errors, 2. the 'package' will be more convenient, 3. some programs only work that way, 4. it's actually an easier operation once you get the hang of it, 5. it's generally applicable to any similar problem.<br> Whenever I get a new appliance that comes with a CD, I usually create an image of it and store it in a folder with those of all the other appliances. That way I don't have to go hunting for possibly-by-then-scratched CDs whenever they're needed. Here we're talking software, not a device, but the reasoning is similar.</p>

<p>Create a CD image from your CD and mount the file in the target machine as a virtual CD.<br> There are many programs that can do the creating and mounting or both, for free.<br> I think http://www.magiciso.com/tutorials/miso-magicdisc-overview.htm is fine (It's been a while since I've used it).</p>

<p>Who told you the 80mp thing? Family-photo film pictures have a resolution up to 3000 dpi (with luck). Pro film pictures go to 4000-5000. With 35mm, this means:</p> <p>- Family: 3000 * 240 / 254 ~= 2832 vertical pixels, so 4248x2832, so 12mp</p> <p>- Pro-min: 4000 * 240 / 254 ~= 3780 vertical pixels, so 5670x3780, so 21mp</p> <p>- Pro-max: 5000 * 240 / 254 ~= 4720 vertical pixels, so 7080x4720, so 33mp</p> <p>But bear in mind that this is *sharp* pixels. There will be no softness (i.e. lack of resolution) in those images, we already took that into account when we estimated 3000/4000-5000. By comparison, the 24mp in your digital sensor (6000x4000) will have a degree of softness. The digital 24mp are the maximum resolution the sensor can see, whereas the mp mentioned above for film are mp of actual information. If we wanted to compare equals, we might say that top quality film has 5000-6000 dpi, which is 33-48mp. </p> <p>But if you want to extract the real data from the film, you will need a drum scan. Only that, going up to 7-8K dpi, can outresolve every film in existence. If you were shooting medium format, then it's different - the negative is much larger so the 240 in the calculations above becomes 550-560, though the 1.5 multiplying factor will have to be adjusted because the width varies with camera, from 0.75 to 3 (but the camera and lenses will be more expensive for larger multiplies, you don't want to know the prices of 6x12 or 6x17 cameras). If you shoot large format, then the amount of detail you can get from even a cheap scanner will be insane, the size of the negatives is measured in multiple inches, not it mm!</p> <p>Film isn't an economical alternative to digital. As the quality of the film system increases, the cost does as well, but digital starts to have a hard time competing in terms of quality (depending on what type of shooting you do). I'd wager that film has a quality edge on the higher and on the lowest end, but you seem to want the medium range, and there digital is very strong.</p> <p>If you plan on making lots of shots, don't even think about film.</p>

Because people think a 6000x4000 8 bit jpeg is good enough for most shots and when *that* special one comes by that they'd like to have in a better format it's too late to do anything? E6 is a niche inside a niche. There are no more special reasons needed.

Love the one looking up the steps!

A drum scan of a good 6x7 will yield more than 100 sharp megapixels. That's not to be scoffed at. DSLRs have a long way to go before they get there. And that's resolution alone. But as I said earlier, it all depends on many factors.

<p>Thanks.</p> <p>@John, can one re-bleach and re-fix film that has been developed a long time ago?</p> <p>@Alan, you're quite right. It's not for the cost that I'd like to do it, it's for the fun.</p> <p>@Rick, it's good to have such testimony, it's what puts some fears to rest.</p>

<p>In Europe there's Velvia 50 everywhere. There's Provia and there's Agfa CT Precisa. Processing is expensive as it always was.</p> <p>Film and digital are different. They will look different in most occasions. Film IQ degrades much more gracefully, in my opinion, whereas digital is much more convenient and cheap. Film has much better dynamic range. Digital will be superior in low light A high end 35mm *film* has about 20mp in it, it's easy to see that 6x7 will have much more than that. But it may not make a difference, and film is unfortunately prone to physical damage. It's entirely up to what you like. I don't see film and digital as competitors, any more than I see painting and photography as competitors. The problem is that for the general public film is as niche as painting. People don't 'like' digital, not do they find it 'better' - they simply find it delivers what they're looking for, so they use it over other alternatives. The only problem is that, unlike with painting, shooting film requires products which need a moderately large demand to remain in production. That leaves us luddites worried.</p> <p>I wouldn't trade my film for digital versions of what it is. But that's just me.</p>