[alt-photo] Re: scanning negatives (negative carrier)
Ryuji Suzuki
rs at silvergrain.org
Mon Jan 9 17:57:29 GMT 2012
Well Jacques shooting film was the answer after shooting digitally for
commercial work for some time... and realizing that I'm getting stupid every
week not shooting film.
But there are a few reasons to shoot film today.
There are some cameras for which digital equivalent does not exist. In my case,
this is the #1 reason. Another reason is dynamic range. Digital capture is good
for situations where lighting is reasonably controlled, but for outdoor shoots,
film is still superior by a wide margin. I can still get good details from
harshly overexposed background and deep shadow areas. Maybe EOS 1D-X will do a
small bit better than the current line of cameras, but even the medium format
backs with big Kodak sensors are nowhere near what Plus-X can do. Now I can't
wait to test 400TMY-2.
In terms of editing, I think editing digital files from film scanning takes a
lot less work than digitally captured images... what can be done in conventional
darkroom work takes a couple of adjustment layers (or adjustment brush in
Lightroom). The biggest PITA is to get the negatives in to the negative carrier.
A downside is that when I shot film on streets to test my new setup, people
noticed I'm doing something different and actually tried to talk to me. That is
a burden.
--
Ryuji Suzuki
"Don't play what's there, play what's not there." (Miles Davis)
Jacques Augustowski wrote:
> What process(es) are you printing from your negatives. If it is Gelatin Silver, then you are in luck. A rule of thumb has always been that a negative that is shot and developed well for gelatin silver is perfect for scanni
More information about the Alt-photo-process-list
mailing list