film vs. file

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Tony Spadaro, Jan 10, 2004.

  1. Tony Spadaro

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    The EOS 750 is well past its use by date. All EOS bodies made before teh EOS
    1 suffer from too many buttons and not enough dials. 100 dollars for a 15
    year old camera doesn't strike me as being cheap.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'd love to get my hands on a great digital camera. I'd love to be able

    to
    > afford one.
    >
    > I can (thanks in large part to digital) afford a film SLR...heck I can

    pick
    > up a Canon EOS 750 for less than a 100 bones. WOW! The memory card costs
    > more than that!
    >
    > So what I'm wondering, from a graphic design angle...that is a lot of web
    > stuff, some CD design, and eventually some full scale design work...can I
    > get as good of a digital image by scanning in the film (the negative not

    the
    > printed pic) as I could by taking it digitally on a 3 megapixel, 5

    megapixel
    > whatever camera?
    >
    > Thanks!
    >
    > mb
    >
    >
     
    Tony Spadaro, Jan 10, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tony Spadaro

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Forgot teh second part of it. A good film scanner is going to be at least
    800 dollars.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'd love to get my hands on a great digital camera. I'd love to be able

    to
    > afford one.
    >
    > I can (thanks in large part to digital) afford a film SLR...heck I can

    pick
    > up a Canon EOS 750 for less than a 100 bones. WOW! The memory card costs
    > more than that!
    >
    > So what I'm wondering, from a graphic design angle...that is a lot of web
    > stuff, some CD design, and eventually some full scale design work...can I
    > get as good of a digital image by scanning in the film (the negative not

    the
    > printed pic) as I could by taking it digitally on a 3 megapixel, 5

    megapixel
    > whatever camera?
    >
    > Thanks!
    >
    > mb
    >
    >
     
    Tony Spadaro, Jan 10, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tony Spadaro

    Paul Rubin Guest

    <> writes:
    > So what I'm wondering, from a graphic design angle...that is a lot of web
    > stuff, some CD design, and eventually some full scale design work...can I
    > get as good of a digital image by scanning in the film (the negative not the
    > printed pic) as I could by taking it digitally on a 3 megapixel, 5 megapixel
    > whatever camera?
    >
    > Thanks!


    For negative film, yes, a 200 dollar film scanner will work pretty
    well. For slide film, you need a more expensive scanner to catch
    shadow detail. That's the 800 dollar scanner Tony is talking about.
    Neg film has less contrast range and is less demanding on the scanner.

    However, you will find using a digicam a heck of a lot more convenient
    and productive than scanning film.
     
    Paul Rubin, Jan 10, 2004
    #3
  4. There have been a lot of discussions how many megapixels you need in digital
    to have a picture that matches an optical one. Wasn't it 11 megapixels (I
    don't remember well)?

    The scanning (if you find a scanner that fit's your needs) is a lot of work
    and I prefer less quality but less work. Photography is a hobby for me and
    it should not become a hard work.

    However I scanned some older pictures (the prints) taken with optical SLR to
    put them to download for some relatives in other countries. The quality was
    better than expected (I didn't expect much) but I had to pay much attention
    to avoid dust on the scanner surface because it became quite visible.

    I also brought some 3-mega-pixel pictures to development on photo paper.
    Until 10x15 format I could not say that it is less quality than optical SLR
    pictures. When doing bigger enlargements you get rapidly less quality.

    Although owning now a 5-mega-pixel camera I mostly use less resolution
    because otherwise my harddisk would permanently be full and a second reason
    is that I put the pictures often for relatives in other countries to
    download and they do not have the quickliest internet connection so file
    size is somewhat important.

    So from my point of view a digital camera is worth it (some memory cards
    included :) ).

    Don't understand me wrong: I would never give away my optical SLR and for
    big family events I still use it. But for all day purposes the optical
    photographing is simply too expensive for me.

    <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:...
    > I'd love to get my hands on a great digital camera. I'd love to be able

    to
    > afford one.
    >
    > I can (thanks in large part to digital) afford a film SLR...heck I can

    pick
    > up a Canon EOS 750 for less than a 100 bones. WOW! The memory card costs
    > more than that!
    >
    > So what I'm wondering, from a graphic design angle...that is a lot of web
    > stuff, some CD design, and eventually some full scale design work...can I
    > get as good of a digital image by scanning in the film (the negative not

    the
    > printed pic) as I could by taking it digitally on a 3 megapixel, 5

    megapixel
    > whatever camera?
    >
    > Thanks!
    >
    > mb
    >
    >
     
    Martin Wildam, Jan 10, 2004
    #4
  5. Tony Spadaro

    Ed Guest

    where can you get such a scanner for $200 ?

    for anything remotely usable you'll need 4000dpi resolution with a wide
    density range.
    in my thinking that $800+ at the very least.

    Sure you can get a hobby scanner for near zero price, but the results will
    just about be good enough to show granny a few holiday snaps

    Ed

    "Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote in message
    news:...
    > <> writes:
    > > So what I'm wondering, from a graphic design angle...that is a lot of

    web
    > > stuff, some CD design, and eventually some full scale design work...can

    I
    > > get as good of a digital image by scanning in the film (the negative not

    the
    > > printed pic) as I could by taking it digitally on a 3 megapixel, 5

    megapixel
    > > whatever camera?
    > >
    > > Thanks!

    >
    > For negative film, yes, a 200 dollar film scanner will work pretty
    > well. For slide film, you need a more expensive scanner to catch
    > shadow detail. That's the 800 dollar scanner Tony is talking about.
    > Neg film has less contrast range and is less demanding on the scanner.
    >
    > However, you will find using a digicam a heck of a lot more convenient
    > and productive than scanning film.
     
    Ed, Jan 10, 2004
    #5
  6. Tony Spadaro

    Don Stauffer Guest

    I even use a print scanner when I want a high res image. As long as the
    print is properly exposed, I'm willing to give up a bit of dynamic range
    to get the higher resolution I get with my 80 dollar print scanner.
    There is no way my Oly 3Mp digicam can match the resolution I get from
    scanning a decent 5 x 7 print.

    Sure, less convenient. If I need convenience, I use the digicam, and am
    willing to trade resolution for convenience. If not, I use the film
    camera.

    Paul Rubin wrote:
    >
    > <
    >
    > For negative film, yes, a 200 dollar film scanner will work pretty
    > well. For slide film, you need a more expensive scanner to catch
    > shadow detail. That's the 800 dollar scanner Tony is talking about.
    > Neg film has less contrast range and is less demanding on the scanner.
    >
    > However, you will find using a digicam a heck of a lot more convenient
    > and productive than scanning film.


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
     
    Don Stauffer, Jan 10, 2004
    #6
  7. <> wrote in
    news::
    > ... can I get as good of a digital image by scanning in the film
    > (the negative not the printed pic) as I could by taking it
    > digitally on a 3 megapixel, 5 megapixel whatever camera?


    It depends strongly on what kind of film you are using, but,
    generally, yes. You can get as good or better digital images by
    scanning film.

    However, count on spending many times the amount of man-hours
    working with the film. And if you are a graphic designer who will
    use alot of film, count on film and film processing costs to quickly
    overtake the initially higher cost of the digital camera.
     
    Tony Whitaker, Jan 10, 2004
    #7
  8. Tony Spadaro

    Guest Guest

    I'd love to get my hands on a great digital camera. I'd love to be able to
    afford one.

    I can (thanks in large part to digital) afford a film SLR...heck I can pick
    up a Canon EOS 750 for less than a 100 bones. WOW! The memory card costs
    more than that!

    So what I'm wondering, from a graphic design angle...that is a lot of web
    stuff, some CD design, and eventually some full scale design work...can I
    get as good of a digital image by scanning in the film (the negative not the
    printed pic) as I could by taking it digitally on a 3 megapixel, 5 megapixel
    whatever camera?

    Thanks!

    mb
     
    Guest, Jan 10, 2004
    #8
  9. Tony Spadaro

    Guest Guest

    Oops...that's not my email, my email is


    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'd love to get my hands on a great digital camera. I'd love to be able

    to
    > afford one.
    >
    > I can (thanks in large part to digital) afford a film SLR...heck I can

    pick
    > up a Canon EOS 750 for less than a 100 bones. WOW! The memory card costs
    > more than that!
    >
    > So what I'm wondering, from a graphic design angle...that is a lot of web
    > stuff, some CD design, and eventually some full scale design work...can I
    > get as good of a digital image by scanning in the film (the negative not

    the
    > printed pic) as I could by taking it digitally on a 3 megapixel, 5

    megapixel
    > whatever camera?
    >
    > Thanks!
    >
    > mb
    >
    >
     
    Guest, Jan 10, 2004
    #9
  10. Tony Spadaro

    leo Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'd love to get my hands on a great digital camera. I'd love to be able

    to
    > afford one.
    >
    > I can (thanks in large part to digital) afford a film SLR...heck I can

    pick
    > up a Canon EOS 750 for less than a 100 bones. WOW! The memory card costs
    > more than that!
    >
    > So what I'm wondering, from a graphic design angle...that is a lot of web
    > stuff, some CD design, and eventually some full scale design work...can I
    > get as good of a digital image by scanning in the film (the negative not

    the
    > printed pic) as I could by taking it digitally on a 3 megapixel, 5

    megapixel
    > whatever camera?
    >
    > Thanks!
    >
    > mb



    If you couldn't put down $1200 for the Canon Digital Rebel and critical
    accessories, I would suggest you at least get a decent digital camera with
    manual control in the $500 range. As an inexperience photographer, it took
    me many shots to get good pictures with the Olympus C-3000Z. The time and
    cost of film development and scanning outstrip the initial cost of a digital
    camera. What other full scale design work are you doing? Does it need the
    resolution of film?
     
    leo, Jan 10, 2004
    #10
  11. On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:08:58 -0600, wrote:
    >So what I'm wondering, from a graphic design angle...that is a lot of web
    >stuff, some CD design, and eventually some full scale design work...can I
    >get as good of a digital image by scanning in the film (the negative not the
    >printed pic) as I could by taking it digitally on a 3 megapixel, 5 megapixel
    >whatever camera?


    An easier scanning option is to take the exposed film
    down to the photofinisher and ask for a PhotoCD (not
    a PictureCD). It takes about 2 to 3 weeks to process,
    holds 100 images (in *.pcd format) in five file sizes,
    and the last price I paid was US$70.00 for a full disc,
    processing included. Works great in PhotoShop, where
    I used the 4th-size image file for an 8x10 magazine
    cover at 300 dpi.

    You have to hunt around to find them, most places
    assume you want a PictureCD with the lower-quality
    JPEG images instead. Details:

    http://www.kodak.com/US/en/digital/products/photoCD.shtml

    "In general, images stored on a PHOTO CD Disc are intended for
    professional or commercial use, available in six levels of resolution,
    ranging from 128 x 192 to 4096 x 6144 pixels. Images stored on a
    Picture CD are intended for the average picture-taker; they
    have one resolution, excellent quality at 1024 x 1536 pixels.
    You can store approximately 100 images on a PHOTO CD Disc,
    and you can add to the images on the CD many times. Images
    are written to Picture CD at the time of the original
    processing from a single roll of film (number of exposures
    will vary), and you cannot add more images to it later.
    PHOTO CD Discs require the use of enabled software to
    view and use the images. Picture CD comes with software
    included on the CD."

    The highest resolution, 4096 x 6144, is available with the
    PRO PHOTO CD.

    George Crissman

    The greatest pleasure I know is to do a good action
    by stealth, and to have it found out by accident.
    - Charles Lamb


    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
    George Crissman, Jan 10, 2004
    #11
  12. You have a very modern granny! - I can show my granny the holiday snaps only
    on prints because she doesn't have a computer. ;-)

    "Ed" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:btonsc$8jb$...
    > where can you get such a scanner for $200 ?
    >
    > for anything remotely usable you'll need 4000dpi resolution with a wide
    > density range.
    > in my thinking that $800+ at the very least.
    >
    > Sure you can get a hobby scanner for near zero price, but the results will
    > just about be good enough to show granny a few holiday snaps
    >
    > Ed
    >
    > "Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > <> writes:
    > > > So what I'm wondering, from a graphic design angle...that is a lot of

    > web
    > > > stuff, some CD design, and eventually some full scale design

    work...can
    > I
    > > > get as good of a digital image by scanning in the film (the negative

    not
    > the
    > > > printed pic) as I could by taking it digitally on a 3 megapixel, 5

    > megapixel
    > > > whatever camera?
    > > >
    > > > Thanks!

    > >
    > > For negative film, yes, a 200 dollar film scanner will work pretty
    > > well. For slide film, you need a more expensive scanner to catch
    > > shadow detail. That's the 800 dollar scanner Tony is talking about.
    > > Neg film has less contrast range and is less demanding on the scanner.
    > >
    > > However, you will find using a digicam a heck of a lot more convenient
    > > and productive than scanning film.

    >
    >
     
    Martin Wildam, Jan 10, 2004
    #12
  13. Tony Spadaro

    Azzz1588 Guest

    In article <>, George Crissman
    <> writes:

    >An easier scanning option is to take the exposed film
    >down to the photofinisher and ask for a PhotoCD (not
    >a PictureCD). It takes about 2 to 3 weeks to process,
    >holds 100 images



    Last time I did this here (VA, USA) it was $7 for the CD, and
    ..85 cents for each picture. And I could bring the CD back untill I
    filled it up.

    This was 2+ years ago, so YMMV.























    "Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
     
    Azzz1588, Jan 11, 2004
    #13
  14. Tony Spadaro

    Martin Brown Guest

    In message <cwNLb.250357$>, Tony
    Spadaro <> writes
    > Forgot teh second part of it. A good film scanner is going to be at least
    >800 dollars.
    >


    Although for modest volumes of material decent quality bureau digital
    scanning starts at around $1 per shot. Slightly less if done in bulk.

    Just avoid consumer aimed PictureCD scans if you need high quality data.
    Kodak PhotoCD though long in the tooth is still pretty good if you can
    find a lab to do it. Depends how quickly you need the results.

    Regards,
    --
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Jan 11, 2004
    #14
  15. Tony Spadaro

    LLutton Guest

    >>An easier scanning option is to take the exposed film down to the
    photofinisher and ask for a PhotoCD (not a PictureCD). It takes about 2 to 3
    weeks to process,
    >>holds 100 images. Last time I did this here (VA, USA) it was $7 for the CD,

    and
    >.85 cents for each picture. And I could bring the CD back untill I filled it

    up.
    >This was 2+ years ago, so YMMV.


    What resolution were the scans?

    The Fuji Frontiers are able to give you 2400 dpi scans on a CD if the Fuji
    software is installed. The Walmarts near me all used cheaper software that
    wouldn't allow their operaters to scan to a CD. I found a lab that uses the
    Fuji software but they wanted to charge me about $10 a scan. I bought a flatbed
    scanner with a film adapter so I can scan 2400 dpi at home.
    Lynn
     
    LLutton, Jan 11, 2004
    #15
  16. Tony Spadaro

    Azzz1588 Guest

    In article <>,
    (LLutton) writes:

    >What resolution were the scans?




    Standard Kodak Photo CD.
    (multiple sized images from thumbnail on up)





















    "Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
     
    Azzz1588, Jan 12, 2004
    #16
  17. Tony Spadaro

    Martin Brown Guest

    In message <>, LLutton
    <> writes
    >>>An easier scanning option is to take the exposed film down to the

    >photofinisher and ask for a PhotoCD (not a PictureCD). It takes about 2 to 3
    >weeks to process,
    >>>holds 100 images. Last time I did this here (VA, USA) it was $7 for the CD,

    >and
    >>.85 cents for each picture. And I could bring the CD back untill I filled it

    >up.
    >>This was 2+ years ago, so YMMV.

    >
    >What resolution were the scans?


    PhotoCD is hierarchical sizes up to and including 3072x2048 for a
    standard scan and 6kx4k for a professional grade (expensive) scan.
    >
    >The Fuji Frontiers are able to give you 2400 dpi scans on a CD if the Fuji
    >software is installed. The Walmarts near me all used cheaper software that
    >wouldn't allow their operaters to scan to a CD. I found a lab that uses the
    >Fuji software but they wanted to charge me about $10 a scan. I bought a flatbed
    >scanner with a film adapter so I can scan 2400 dpi at home.


    You should be able to find decent bureau scanning to 6M pixels for
    around $1 each.

    Regards,
    --
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Jan 12, 2004
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Phil Edry
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,256
    Derek Gee
    Oct 11, 2004
  2. Sharp Shooter

    DSLRs or Slide Film or Colour Negative Film? ;o)

    Sharp Shooter, Jun 20, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,144
  3. Rick Baker
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,263
    Scott W
    Mar 17, 2006
  4. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    4,040
    Michael Benveniste
    Jun 13, 2006
  5. Progressiveabsolution

    Negative Print film vs. Slide Film

    Progressiveabsolution, Jul 4, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    732
    Stacey
    Jul 5, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page