ethan_haun

<p>A few posters have posted to say that I am confused. I want to address this a bit. I am NOT confused. I know exactly how most peple define the terms, which is opposite to what I was taught. My point is that not I am confused and need to be straighten out. Rather, I just disagree.</p> <p>I reckon that the word "key" as people use it in this context, refer not to the key light. Instead, it refers to the overall "feel" of the scene. The words "high" and "low" as people use them in this context, refer not to "level" of the light. Rather, they refer to the overall "mood" of the scene -- "high" as in an "upbeat mood" and "low" as in a "down mood". <em><strong>I knew that and I said that exactly in the OP</strong></em> -- that most people use the terms to refer to the mood of the scene.</p> <p>This is all good. I am <strong>NOT</strong> advocating anyone to change their beloved jargon they have been using. I just think that this maybe an interesting discussion, that's all. In any discipline and trade, there are terms that beg the question, "Why do they call it blah balh, it doesn't make sense." To me the "high key", "low key" terms are one of those terms. You may disagree, but that's cool too.</p> <p>At the end of the day, in the real world, it really doesn't matter. As long as you are able to achieve the lighting effect you've envisioned and set out to achieve, what difference does it made what it is called, right? :)</p>

<p>If the edge numbers and letters are thin, then, more likely than not, it is under-development. In old films, you'd see a lot of base fogging. Seems to me that the lab has messed up. It's one thing that a lab makes a mistake (even the best labs do occasionally). But it's another thing that they either don't know or don't admit the mistake. I won't use them again.</p>

<p>@Mike Dixon. Very interesting discussion you linked to. Reading through it. Thank you for sharing.</p>

<p>Just for the sake of discussion, I do think the definition I learned (be it "right" or "wrong") makes more sense for two reasons:</p> <p>1) We usually use the term "low key" to describe something that is non-dramatic, mellow, inconspicuous. This is exactly the opposite of the dramatic scene "low-key lighting" is producing.</p> <p>2) Isn't it more natural and straight forward to directly refer to the key-to-fill ratio? High-key for high key-to-fill ratio and low-key for low key-to-fill ratio. It seems backward to say that high-key means low key-to-fill ratio and vice versa.</p> <p>The 2 points above were what I was taught at college more than 20 years ago,</p>

<p>Well then, maybe there were 2 different ways of defining the terms back then and one way eventually won. IDK. I know that was the definition I was taught at school ... but then again, my teachers could have been wrong. But as mentioned, I remember years ago, I read the very same discussion in another forum and the conclusion in the thread was that the definition changed over the years.<br> No biggy, it's a not a serious topic ... I was reading another thread regarding "high-key" lighting and it reminded me of this question I've had for years. That's all.</p>

Listen man, are you serious? Are you suggesting that I make this up just so I can have an argument on a Internet forum? Don't know how old you are but I am talking about 20 some years ago. There were no Internet back then. I don't have my text books or recording of the classes when I went to college. So I can't prove it nor would I spend the time to try to search for it. You just have to take my words for it. I understand that things change over time. It's cool. Again, it is not a serious topic, I just find it interesting how it changed. That's all.

@Michael, I think my writing is not confusing. But I guess it is a matter of opinion. And, I am not confused. I KNOW the definition being used in the past 10 or so years and it is exactly as you say. What I am saying though, if you read my post, is that back 20 years or so ago, the terms were actually defined in the exactly opposite way. BACK THEN, high key was short for high key-to-fill ratio and low key was short for low key-to-fill ratio. This is of course opposite to how they are today but to me the old way makes a whole lot more sense. This is not a serious topic. I am just chatting. No need to get all passionate about it.

<p>@Michael, you should read my post again ... seems to me you have missed quite a bit of what I said in the post.</p>

<p>When I first learned photography and lighting back in the 70's the two techniques were defined by the Key-to-Fill Ratio. A high Key-to-Fill Ratio is called (naturally) as "High Key Lighting" vs. a low Key-to-Fill Ratio is called (obviously) "Low Key Lighting". This makes sense to me. <br> Over the decades, I don't know when, the 2 terms have switched places. What photographers these days call an overall soft, evenly lit, shadowless shot a "High Key" shot even though to achieve this look, you actually need to keep the Key-to-Fill Ratio low. Vice versa for the "Low Key" shot. This doesn't make sense to me.<br> I remember may be 10, 15 years ago, I saw a forum discussion on this very same subject. The conclusion there was that the terms "High key", "Low Key" no longer refer to the Key-to-Fill Ratio anymore. Instead, they refer to the "mood" generally associated with the lighting effect. A high Key-to-Fill Ratio shot, as in Film Noir, produces that "moody" look; hence "Low Key". Whereas, a low Key-to-Fill Ratio shot produces that "upbeat" look; hence, "High Key".<br> What do you guys think? </p>

<p>I see the value for a BIG event photography type companies. Those operation shoot up to thousands of photos during a big event. That can be a valuable tool for them. Beyond that, I don't think it's all that desirable. It'll work if you market it to the right audience. Good luck with your business endeavor ... we need more independent entrepreneurs.</p>

<p>Thank you guys. Very good info here. I'll definitely try the tips given here for both methods. It'll be a while b4 I have the time to rig 1 of my enlargers into a proper and decent copy apparatus for the camera method. But I will report back my experience. </p>

<p>@Les Sarile, I don't have a "position" and I am NOT advocating one method over another. I am certainly not debating b/c I have a preference for a particular method.</p> <p>As mentioned, I have always been a "film guy". I have scanned quite a lot of film before, using both dedicated film scanner and flatbed with TMA. Not a master, but I have also mentioned I rate myself as having mid-level skill in term of scanning. I have not done any digital camera copy before, although I have quite a bit of experence with the analogue copy- and inter-negatives process.</p> <p>My goal here in this thread is to get as much information as I can before I start my digitizing project. Personally, I only care what gives me the best result within my own limitations and priorities. Other than that, I don't care.</p>

<p>@ Les Sarile, I am truly sorry if I have given you the wrong impression. I am familiar with ICE and other dust-scratch removal algorithm and what they do; how they do it and the effect thereof on the image. As I mentioned b4, this is the reason I don't count having dust-scratch removal algorithm built-in an advantage for me as I do the removal post-scan.</p> <p>I understand every person has his/her own priority. For me? I just can't stand soft image. It's a major beef for me. Sure, I know I can sharpen post-scan, but it is not the same and I'd rather to have an image as sharp as it can be to begin with and apply as little sharpening as I can avoid it. Your priority may be different but that's cool.</p> <p>Actually, your examples are pretty consistent with other examples I have seen online, which is that camera copy does seem to produce sharper image than with using flatbed TMA or even dedicated film scanner. Do you concur?</p>

<p>@Les Sarile, I am unsure of what you want to show me by the examples you posted (and I am NOT being sarcastic).</p> <p>If your point is that ICE does a good job removing dust and scratch, I agree, it does, but I already know that and are not debating it at all.</p> <p>If your point is that ICE removes dust and scratches without softening the scan, then, I have to strongly disagree. To my eyes at least, in each example, the camera copy version is quite noticeably sharper than the Coolscan versions, even the Coolscan without ICE. The scans with ICE on "Fine" are worse in term of sharpness among the bunch.</p>

<p>How about wet-mounting? Does wet-mounting (for dust-scratch removal) soften the scan?</p>

<blockquote> <p> ... Coolscan takes it away "magically" with no further spotting needed in post.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, but, Digital Ice (or other dust-scratch remove algorithm) also soften the image, which is a higher price to pay, IMO.</p>

<p>@Alan, thank you for the information. Make sense and it's a good place to start. Thank you for sharing.</p> <p>@Les Sarile, point well taken, but to me, it isn't such a big advantage b/c my negs are in great shape and I usually are very good at keeping all surfaces as dust "free" as possible.</p> <p>I am planning to convert one of my Omega or Durst enlargers to use for the shooting method. What do you think?</p> <p>And I will try my friend's V700 again with the tips I get from here. </p>

<blockquote> <p>And maybe there is, and have you also been told a number of times already which method produces better results?<br> Use the Epson!</p> </blockquote> <p>It seems to me that there are equal number of people advocating either method. I haven't seen anyone given any reason(s) why one method is inherently better than the other, yet. My impression thus far is that either method can produce outstanding result if it is done right.</p>

<p>@peter, @Alan</p> <p>The techniques for scanning and shooting you guys outlined here are equally intriguing. I am committed to learn and try them both. Thank you for sharing.</p> <p>However, I feel that my main concern has still not been addressed. That is to say, the inherent technical advantage(s) of one method over another. By "technical advantage(s)" I don't mean the techniques being used or time involved or cost or convenience. I mean the nature of the technology themselves.</p> <p>Maybe a analogy can serve to illustrate my question better. Now, we all know that reversal film inherently has a much shorter latitude (tonal range) than negative film. That's just the nature of reversal film. There are developing and printing techniques one can use to squeeze out more from a reversal film but the result is still not going to compare to negative film, in term of tonal range. That's the natural limitation of the film. This is what I want to find out about the two digitizing methods here. Is there any limitation of the technology itself that is of concern? I've heard that, for example, the D-Max one can archive by digitizing with a DSLR is never going to be comparable to that by scanning (assuming equally top grade equipment in both cases.) But then again, I've heard the exact opposite from some other folks.</p> <p>Maybe there is none and that the two methods are equally good overall when all things considered. IDK.</p> <p> </p>

<p>@Q.G., may you elaborate on it a bit? Why is it inherently better with scanning. (Note, I am not debating, I am asking 'cause, I don't know.)</p>

<p>I think I should clarify my inquiry a bit more.<br> Techniques can be learned and I'll be glad to learn them. My question is really about the "inherent" pro and con of the two methods. In other words, is there any inherent reason why one method is better than the other?</p> <p>[To be honest, I am old school, and, stubbornly, I still shoot film (although I shoot digital for my "less-than-serious" projects) and most of my prints are still wet printed by myself. I do recognized and appreciate the digital process (I am quite good with Photoshop). But as we all know, the analogy process is getting more difficult by the day. The reason I am digitizing my film is literally to prepare for the day when supplies are no longer available.]</p>

<p>@peter, I haven't tried wet-mounting and I doubt I'd invest the time wet-mounting all my neg, which I have a lot. As as I understand it, wet-mounting has 2 purposes: 1) dust and scratch reduction and 2) better focusing. For the former, I don't worry about it too much b/c I am pretty good at cleaning all the surface to begin with and any left over dust and scratch I will just deal with them post-scan -- I've found it better anyway. For the latter, I just don't understand why Epson can't provide auto-focus for the V7XX/V8XX scanner. Unless, there are inherent technical issues, I just find it disappointing for a $700 - $900 scanner.<br> Also, may you elaborate on "calibrate the film (BW or Colour) for the base colour. This gives me a calibrated maximum black and get's your scans away from dealing with base+fog"? Is that a function of Vuescan?</p>

<p>@peter, how do you obtain great scans with a flatbed TMA? I understand that drum scanning take considerable skills, but are there technique using flatbed TMA that are not common known? Please don't mistake my question as a sarcasm or a debate (tone of speech on the internet is difficult to detect; just wanna clarify that); I truly simply wanna learn. I mean, like using multiple passes to reduce noise, etc. What else?</p>

<p>@Les Sarile, they are mostly TMax, some Fuji Velvia, no color neg at all.<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=696354"><br /></a><br> @JDM, dedicated film scanners are better. I have a Nikon 4000 and a 5000. But as you noted, there are very few dedicated film scanner for 4x5 and even if you can find one, it costs too much (for me).</p> <p>@Q.G., for some reasons, the V700 scans never seem to be sharp enough for me. NOT that the scans are unsharp per se, I just always feel that they "should be" sharper.</p>

<p>@Les, I usually print no bigger than 16x20. And you are exactly correct, I need less bellows extension not more. I was mistaken — being a printer for decades, I instantly thought about it as if I was printing and the distance between the negative stage and the lens stage came to my mind instead of the distance between the lens stage and the camera sensor.<br> @peter, I am familiar with scanning. Not a master of it, probably in the mid-level in term of skillfulness. Let me put my question in a different way. Assuming that I am equally skilled with both methods, which one of them give better quality (assuming at same resolution) copy in terms of sharpness, dynamic range and D-Max?</p>