Film really is dead, especially for travel

William wrote on Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:08:07 +0530:


"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:40:05 +0530, "William Black"
wrote:

Process your own film for pennies, then buy a 35mm film
scanner for about £50 ($75, this week)

Have you found one at that price that does a good job? If so which
one?

Nope.

I have a friendly professional photographer...

My Canon scanner has a film adapter that actually does quite a good job
but it's a bit slow. It can handle negatives and slides. I wonder what
would be considered a suitable resolution to compare with wet methods?
My scanner does 2400 dpi and has made quite acceptable 8x10s from
negatives since that's equivalent to about 300 dpi on the print but I
wouldn't care to do much cropping.The salesman could not tell me the
resolution of cheaper film scanners like the one Brookestone sells for
USD 100.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Can't you sell yourself elsewhere ??

"Martin" a écrit dans le message de
...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:08:07 +0530, "William Black"
wrote:


"Martin" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:40:05 +0530, "William Black"
wrote:


Process your own film for pennies, then buy a 35mm film scanner for
about
£50 ($75, this week)

Have you found one at that price that does a good job? If so which one?

Nope.

I have a friendly professional photographer...

and he sells them GBP50?
--

Martin

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:18:53 -0800, poldy wrote in post :
news
Beyond
the costs, film equipment is a lot heavier and bigger, even more bulky
than most DSLRs.

ime DSLRs are a lot heavier and usually larger than film SLRs
--
Tim C.

In article ,
Mike wrote:

poldy wrote:

I don't recall film being that bad but then again, a couple of decades
ago, you used to be able to set up tripods and take long exposures
almost everywhere. These days, tripods are not only frowned upon in
interiors but in exterior public spaces as well in many European cities.

if you are going to set up a tripod, you can make several exposures to
suit the light and the dark and then combine them, its called HDR.
Photoshop can automate it for you or there are other programmes.

Its thought that the dynamic range of digital sensors will one day be
able to handle the full range of possible light.

Well the examples I've seen of HDR photos look psychedelic. Colors are
other-worldly.

But it's a big if, being able to use tripods in a lot of public sites.

In article ,
"William Black" wrote:

Even if I gathered all these materials, it's not likely the places I
would like to photograph would permit tripods or long setups.

Why not?

Have you considered asking them.

The reality is that many major European places of interest that restrict
photography will sell you a license to take pictures, but they'd much rather
sell you their own professionally produced photographs.

That is becoming more common. If they don't restrict cameras
altogether, they won't tolerate someone slowing down the flow of traffic
with a tripod which takes up a big footprint.

And in churches, they consider themselves places of worship and don't
charge for entry so they're doing you a favor and setting up anything
other than a quick snap with tripod and so on is probably abusing that
favor.

Or I can at least understand that POV.

In article ,
Martin wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:40:05 +0530, "William Black"
wrote:


Process your own film for pennies, then buy a 35mm film scanner for about
£50 ($75, this week)

Have you found one at that price that does a good job? If so which one?

I'm skeptical too.

Scanning services in the US describe their process:

scancafe.com

northcoastphoto.com

In article ,
"William Black" wrote:

One limitation is dynamic range, which you can see if you try to
photograph the interior of a cathedral or church where the interiors are
mostly lit by daylight coming in through the windows.

That's a function of 'film speed'.

Modern digital cameras can adjust to provide the illusion of different film
speeds.

Right, but the higher ISO settings yield more noisy images.

Yeah maybe if I spent 2 grand on a DSLR, the results would be cleaner.

But people use techniques like HDR blending of bracketed exposures to
overcome this limitation with digital.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

poldy writes:

I don't recall film being that bad but then again, a couple of decades
ago, you used to be able to set up tripods and take long exposures
almost everywhere. These days, tripods are not only frowned upon in
interiors but in exterior public spaces as well in many European cities.

Digital does not eliminate the need for tripods.

Never implied that it did.

But I see people taking pictures in the dark or trying to use flash in a
big space like Notre Dame. Their results won't be any good but they
think they got something they'll be able to keep.

"poldy" wrote in message
news
In article ,
Mike wrote:

poldy wrote:

I don't recall film being that bad but then again, a couple of decades
ago, you used to be able to set up tripods and take long exposures
almost everywhere. These days, tripods are not only frowned upon in
interiors but in exterior public spaces as well in many European cities.

if you are going to set up a tripod, you can make several exposures to
suit the light and the dark and then combine them, its called HDR.
Photoshop can automate it for you or there are other programmes.

Its thought that the dynamic range of digital sensors will one day be
able to handle the full range of possible light.

Well the examples I've seen of HDR photos look psychedelic. Colors are
other-worldly.

But it's a big if, being able to use tripods in a lot of public sites.

Most public places like churches consider that if you use a tripod you must
be a professional and will sell your work for a profit. They have their own
professionally taken photos so send you away with a flea in your ear!

"poldy" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"William Black" wrote:



And in churches, they consider themselves places of worship and don't
charge for entry so they're doing you a favor and setting up anything
other than a quick snap with tripod and so on is probably abusing that
favor.

The bigger churches in the UK usually now charge for entry, don't allow
photography without a permit of some sort and will sell you first class
photographs and slides of just about everything within the buildings.


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.