redisburning wrote:
yes, they will hand inspect film of any speed at Logan, Jacksonville and DFW; I believe it's TSA policy.
Damn, I didn't even think about this. I'm heading on a trip to FL next week, shooting film for the first time in years. Do I need to keep it out of the X-Ray machine?
yeah, well they say that the scans add up so I think it's best to just ask for a hand inspection. as long as you ask nicely and thank them they are more than happy to do it for you.
rattymouse wrote:
One does not need a bad meter to take more control.
It's not a bad meter - it's every bit as accurate as my Sekonic 558 (granted it doesn't give you a reading to the tenth of a stop). The GF670 is center-weighted, the Mamiya 7 is a spot meter (in the center). Neither are fool-proof! I guess if you are only planning on shooting C41, it wouldn't matter much, just stay away from slide film!
redisburning wrote:
yeah, well they say that the scans add up so I think it's best to just ask for a hand inspection. as long as you ask nicely and thank them they are more than happy to do it for you.
The X-Ray effect is cumulative - just don't get to 1600 or so and you'll be fine. I will carry some Delta 3200 around to make sure it's always hand checked.
corposant wrote:
The X-Ray effect is cumulative - just don't get to 1600 or so and you'll be fine. I will carry some Delta 3200 around to make sure it's always hand checked.
I always transport my film in the check in luggage, so it gets subjected to the highest x rays. I never had a problem, even with delta 3200. But of course I use some common sense in that film never makes more than one 2-way trip in the suitcase. I always take fresh film on a trip.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I always transport my film in the check in luggage, so it gets subjected to the highest x rays. I never had a problem, even with delta 3200. But of course I use some common sense in that film never makes more than one 2-way trip in the suitcase. I always take fresh film on a trip.
TSA in the US will warn you against doing that - you can search flickr for people's photos after having gone through an American checked-luggage X-ray.
corposant wrote:
TSA in the US will warn you against doing that - you can search flickr for people's photos after having gone through an American checked-luggage X-ray.
I will remember that when I travel to the US at the end of the year
Lith certainly provides a unique and different look to a print. But the point I was making was my final image was the result of many, many adjustment layers that provided selective and localized adjustments. The dodging and burning required in the darkroom is FAR over my head and I am not sure anyone could do it with the source negative.
A lith print will change the image but not in the selective way my edits did.
To the folks who helped me out in this thread, learning about film, I offer my thanks by showing you what I happen to buy today....all because of you.....
It's not the GF670 that I wanted, but then again, it's not $1700. This is a much cheaper way for me to dive into film, shoot a lot more, and stop the endless wondering what to do. A perfect solution for my situation I think.
Can't wait to see some of those negatives that come back!
That's a fun one, I've only put a few rolls of film through the GA645 as I'd only borrowed it, but it was a thoroughly entertaining little camera and that 60/4 is great.
The Mamiya 7 has a fine meter. I often use spot metering anyway, so it works for me.
I love shooting film, and I like scanning it. I've used the Epson V500, V600 and V750. I've used a Coolscan 9000 as well, but I don't care much for the ones I have access to (which are on their last legs and are temperamental, to say the least). I'm well aware of its overall superiority, though.
I got my Mamiya 7 in January and have shot about 100 rolls with it. That's a lot for someone like me. I'm a student and not a professional. My two primary film cameras are a Mamiya 7 (I) with a 65/4 and an F100 that I typically use with my 35/2 (the same as with my D700). Out of my three primary cameras, my Mamiya 7 is the "favorite child," as I've taken to calling it.
I virtually never do digital black and white now, and so prefer film over digital B/W that I just don't do the latter anymore. It looks wrong to me, and I can think of but one digital image of mine this year that I think looks better in B/W than in color.
My scanned film has yielded the best of both worlds, and I plan to keep on shooting and scanning for as long as I can. I like being able to work on the files in Lightroom, and when I better learn Photoshop, I imagine I'll use it more alongside Lightroom. I think of film as a starting point, and the organic nature of film provides a certain range that digital doesn't have in my experience.
I did not read all the posts, but my take on this question is that scanned film is truly digital; however, the only difference is that film grain also scans very well and that grain is what separates scanned film from a digital file.
This especially works in the case of b&w because post-processing digital b&w is not easy - especially adding natural looking grain.
On the other hand, color film scans are pointless because all of them need to have their white balance corrected and color corrected to look "natural" and even then modern digital files will look better because of higher dynamic range and no grain/noise at lower ISOs.
rattymouse wrote:
Reading a lot of the chat here among film users, I find that many take their negatives and then scan them for final use on their computer.
This seems perplexing. Why? Well, I fail to understand why shooting film and then scanning it yields any advantage over shooting digital? Film's greatness is in its "analogueness". Film has the ability to capture an infinite number of tonalities because it does not have to digitize anything. This can be seen looking at the negative, or the print (or slide).
ALL that is lost once digitized. A computer has to sample the image, retain some data, and toss the rest. The image is no longer analogue, but digital. A digital camera digitizes the (analogue) image reflected on the sensor by the lens. A scanner digitizes the (analogue) negative. The end result is the same, a digital image.
So why bother shooting film if your final result is digital? I have encountered several people here and elsewhere who have no interest at all with printing analogue images.
