Digital vs Slides vs Prints

[emanphoto]

The other side of this is that the digital cam will be, #1 out of date when you get it, #2 will absolutely lose value faster than all get out. I sold my XT before it lost any more value (at a loss of course) and presently am doing the Craigslist watch for my next DSLR to slap my $900 L lens on. Yippee.

If you buy a good scanner, it should last you and remain relevant for much longer than a DSLR will, your film images will also be much cheaper to store and not dependent on electricity to keep them "alive".

Once your ship comes in and you can afford to get into DSLR's, then you won't have to worry about which speed film to bring along or what the color balance of the lights will be wherever you go to shoot. Just don't get too attached as these cameras as they are not keepsakes like a Leica or Blad and should be sold off within 2-3 years to enable getting the next best thing.

Eric

Also consider what you will do in the future. For example, if you know that you will eventually get a DSLR...then why spend $500 on a film scanner and $300 on film & processing in the mean time?

 

[bhop]

Here's a 100% view of a 35mm drum scan that, if viewing the entire image at this magnification, would display at 105 x 71 inches. 5200 ppi/dpi/spi...o hell whatever u call it, giving one a 111MB tif file. It was probably 50-100 ASA transparency film....etc.

I've always wondered about drum scanner quality, so I'm curious to see the full image. Just how far is it "zoomed in" to this person's face?

 

[Seefutlung]

The other side of this is that the digital cam will be, #1 out of date when you get it, #2 will absolutely lose value faster than all get out. I sold my XT before it lost any more value (at a loss of course) and presently am doing the Craigslist watch for my next DSLR to slap my $900 L lens on. Yippee.

If you buy a good scanner, it should last you and remain relevant for much longer than a DSLR will, your film images will also be much cheaper to store and not dependent on electricity to keep them "alive".

Once your ship comes in and you can afford to get into DSLR's, then you won't have to worry about which speed film to bring along or what the color balance of the lights will be wherever you go to shoot. Just don't get too attached as these cameras as they are not keepsakes like a Leica or Blad and should be sold off within 2-3 years to enable getting the next best thing.

Eric

I recently picked up a Canon which two years ago went for $7,000 for $2,200 on Ebay. I too was keeping an eye on CL but Ebay served me better.

Gary

PS- The camera only had 8,000 actuation, looked and seemingly even smelled new.
G

 

[emanphoto]

Like I mentioned, it's a screen shot of the image displaying at 100%, actual pixels, (command>option>zero) so if our screens were big enough for the whole image at this view setting, it would be 105 x 71 inches @72dpi....Yep 8 3/4 feet long.
I scan my images 1:1 at 5200 dpi. A "10" quality jpg of my 35mm slide is 10MB. There are scanners that go as high as 11,000.

I've always wondered about drum scanner quality, so I'm curious to see the full image. Just how far is it "zoomed in" to this person's face?

 

[bhop]

Like I mentioned, it's a screen shot of the image displaying at 100%, actual pixels...etc...

Thanks, that's some pretty great detail in that scan.

 

[usayit]

I posted my initial review of the Epson V700 scanner a long time ago with some samples from print film (black and white as well as color) for both 35mm and medium format. I have to say that the scans I ended up with are very impressive... and only enhance my enjoyment of film. This is from a flatbed... the dedicated scanners I had access to at school were even more impressive. Everything in this thread seems right. Film has a certain look that is very pleasing but digital has definitely closed up the gap.

for #1, scanning photos was very tedious... lots of cleanup and manual fix. Even then, I could easily tell which frames were from prints. For negative film, the details in the scans are heavily dependent on the scanning methods. It is possible to pull out a tremendous amount of detail if the scanning is proper as the samples above show. My slide film scans are equally just as nice.

In the end, I am heading towards more digital photos because of the limits of time I have to dedicate to my hobby. If time permitted, I would have no problems going back to film and scanning (and darkroom).

The link to my review of the V700 with samples of 35mm and MF (full and cropped)

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/digital-discussion-q/62119-epson-v700-experiences.html

 

[tsaraleksi]

The other side of this is that the digital cam will be, #1 out of date when you get it, #2 will absolutely lose value faster than all get out. I sold my XT before it lost any more value (at a loss of course) and presently am doing the Craigslist watch for my next DSLR to slap my $900 L lens on. Yippee.

If you buy a good scanner, it should last you and remain relevant for much longer than a DSLR will, your film images will also be much cheaper to store and not dependent on electricity to keep them "alive".

Once your ship comes in and you can afford to get into DSLR's, then you won't have to worry about which speed film to bring along or what the color balance of the lights will be wherever you go to shoot. Just don't get too attached as these cameras as they are not keepsakes like a Leica or Blad and should be sold off within 2-3 years to enable getting the next best thing.

Eric

This is a really counterproductive way to look at the market. The only reason that digital becomes obsolete rapidly is because they keep on improving. Scanners stay the same because there isn't much left to do upgrade wise, and the market for them is static and/or shrinking every day. To say that digital is improving all the time is hardly a knock on it, and just because a new camera comes means nothing in terms of your camera's usefulness.

 

[emanphoto]

This is a really counterproductive way to look at the market. The only reason that digital becomes obsolete rapidly is because they keep on improving. Scanners stay the same because there isn't much left to do upgrade wise, and the market for them is static and/or shrinking every day. To say that digital is improving all the time is hardly a knock on it, and just because a new camera comes means nothing in terms of your camera's usefulness.

I don't mean to be counterproductive or make this statement as a knock, just an obvious reality. Change in these terms is good overall of course, but can leave one feeling somewhat left behind or even short-changed especially coming from a film background where if you bought a good brand/model it remained so till it broke.
If put in film terms, if every 6 mos. a new film came out that was better than the $600-2000 worth of film stock you just bought, you'd naturally want that new film and be maybe even be pissed about it. The film you have is still just as good as it was but if you can achieve a higher quality, one naturally feels their film to be inadequate and desires the new version.

Scanning IS tedious and a pain. If one is lucky enough to be able to afford a full frame camera, I'd avoid it if possible. Since there is 150+ years of exposed film out there, scanning should remain relevant for a little while longer.