[alt-photo] Re: scanning negatives (negative carrier)

[Ryuji Suzuki]

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