Zack Arias, editing rig, thoughts?

[gsgary]

Scan a 4x5 at 5k ppi and let me know how that works out on your non-fancy PC..... I have back in like 1998 on a Powermac.

It sucks.

Take about 4 minutes for MF

 

[unpopular]

Yeah. To scan it. Then you have a 500MP file to wrastle.

 

[amolitor]

I don't get the "shoot film and then scan it" thing AT ALL. There's probably some applications that make sense, and of course people are free to do whatever makes them happy, even crazy things. I shoot film, I shoot digital. I don't monkey around trying to cross the streams, though.

 

[gsgary]

Yeah. To scan it. Then you have a 500MP file to wrastle.

When i say my computer is not fancy it could be to someone else

 

[gsgary]

I don't get the "shoot film and then scan it" thing AT ALL. There's probably some applications that make sense, and of course people are free to do whatever makes them happy, even crazy things. I shoot film, I shoot digital. I don't monkey around trying to cross the streams, though.

I still print them in a darkroom, i only scan them for the internet and club competitions

 

[unpopular]

I don't get the "shoot film and then scan it" thing AT ALL. There's probably some applications that make sense, and of course people are free to do whatever makes them happy, even crazy things. I shoot film, I shoot digital. I don't monkey around trying to cross the streams, though.

If you scan at a resolution higher than the median grain density, then it really doesn't much matter - at least not resolution-wise. If you print back onto a continuous tone media there isn't any objective difference. With modern inkjets having such huge dpi values, it probably doesn't matter much on inkjet either.

 

[amolitor]

I don't get the "shoot film and then scan it" thing AT ALL. There's probably some applications that make sense, and of course people are free to do whatever makes them happy, even crazy things. I shoot film, I shoot digital. I don't monkey around trying to cross the streams, though.

If you scan at a resolution higher than the median grain density, then it really doesn't much matter - at least not resolution-wise. If you print back onto a continuous tone media there isn't any objective difference. With modern inkjets having such huge dpi values, it probably doesn't matter much on inkjet either.

Sure, but if you're going to digital anyways, why not just start digital? Yes, I know some people like to switch horses mid-stream and convert and all, I know it, I even respect it. I just think it's weird, incomprehensible, and mostly crazy.

 

[Buckster]

I don't get the "shoot film and then scan it" thing AT ALL. There's probably some applications that make sense, and of course people are free to do whatever makes them happy, even crazy things. I shoot film, I shoot digital. I don't monkey around trying to cross the streams, though.

If you scan at a resolution higher than the median grain density, then it really doesn't much matter - at least not resolution-wise. If you print back onto a continuous tone media there isn't any objective difference. With modern inkjets having such huge dpi values, it probably doesn't matter much on inkjet either.

Sure, but if you're going to digital anyways, why not just start digital? Yes, I know some people like to switch horses mid-stream and convert and all, I know it, I even respect it. I just think it's weird, incomprehensible, and mostly crazy.

So, we will never see anything you've shot on film?

 

[amolitor]

So, we will never see anything you've shot on film?

I will, very occasionally, break out the macro lens to shoot a negative so I can put a proof up online. I may have done this as much as a dozen times. It's just a proof, or not even quite that. It's a thing that's very roughly what I had in mind for the final print. It's a hassle, and I rarely see any point to it, though. Final prints, where they exist, are done wet.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

Hey, thanks for TOTALLY hijacking my thread. Jerks.

 

[amolitor]

PUT ONE MILLYUN DOLLARS IN A BAG UNDER ZEE OLDE OAK TREE EEF YOU EVAIR WANT TO ZEE YOUR TRED ALIVE AGAIN!

 

[jake337]

This is your livelyhood, right?

Take out a loan, claim as a business expense during tax season.

 

[jake337]

I don't get the "shoot film and then scan it" thing AT ALL. There's probably some applications that make sense, and of course people are free to do whatever makes them happy, even crazy things. I shoot film, I shoot digital. I don't monkey around trying to cross the streams, though.

If you scan at a resolution higher than the median grain density, then it really doesn't much matter - at least not resolution-wise. If you print back onto a continuous tone media there isn't any objective difference. With modern inkjets having such huge dpi values, it probably doesn't matter much on inkjet either.

Sure, but if you're going to digital anyways, why not just start digital? Yes, I know some people like to switch horses mid-stream and convert and all, I know it, I even respect it. I just think it's weird, incomprehensible, and mostly crazy.

This is just a guess, but maybe some people like the film medium and digital post processing?

Plus I see no real medium and large format digital available. Like real 4x5, 6x6, 6x7, 8x10 digital sensors.

 

[Mfink22]

Ignoring the Mac vs PC discussion and going back to your original question of a new editing rig vs new camera body, I'd go with the new editing rig, definitely. If, as you said, you are spending 5x longer on the editing process than you would if you had a new editing rig, how much is that time worth. What else could you be doing with the time saved....

I to switched to Mac a few years back. I still use windows for some of my administrative applications, but the Mac just flies with LR4 and CS6.

I have recently purchased a similar IMac setup to what you are considering. No issues. I would consider throwing in as large an SSD as you can afford to. you wont regret the extra space.

I run VMFusion loaded on it with an XP and Win7 Image loaded that I can run on the second monitor if I need Windows apps..works like a champ.

Derrel....I'm close, I'm with you on 3 out of 4 ..... Mac, Nikon, Coke and Chevy........

-Mike

 

[unpopular]

Sure, but if you're going to digital anyways, why not just start digital? Yes, I know some people like to switch horses mid-stream and convert and all, I know it, I even respect it. I just think it's weird, incomprehensible, and mostly crazy.[/QUOTE]

Price per megapixel is way less on film. Professionally scanned at 5K, a 4x5 negative would cost, what, $165?

Now why you'd need a 500 megapixel file is another matter.