generally I agree, but if you tell me a decent pro film can deliver more details than 200 iso consumer one, I 'll point again to the fact, that I have used only a 10MP digital camera. there are higher resolving bodies out there.
as far as keeping the film flat is concerned: just use a film holder from an old enlarger and you will be fine. and I spent years scanning films, so when it comes to bad colors I am pretty sure it was the scanner, not me.
if you use slides, then dust is not such a big deal anyway. with negatives and good working envirnment it should not be either.
my "technology" implies however, that you actually already own a decent digital camera anyway - and could "misuse" it for a scanner. it works fine for me.
You asked what we thought was better and then dismissed everyone. Experiment all you want, but you're not the first to go down the dSLR as copy camera route.
TWoK wrote:
I don't see anywhere to buy a new Coolscan.
Its often been difficult to find them in stock in recent years, but its also possible that they've quietly discontinued it. That said, I couldn't find a discontinuance notice for the LS-9000 but have seen one for the LS-5000. Its also possible that they've had a supply chain issue disrupting production.
Some inspiring images on this thread...stunning quality!....now to beat my own particular drum...isn't it time for a forum on FM dedicated to film users??
One more, this time on Superia 400, shot @ 200 and developed @ 400. I think this film likes a little overexposure. Wide open.
If you're wondering what the blue lights on the left are, I accidentally opened the camera before rewinding the film. I thought it was a gonner so it took me ages to get around to developing this roll.
I don't see how "character" would have added anything to the aesthetic appeal of any of the shots I've taken.
Aside from, of course, horrendously boring plant/street/pet shots which have no content or story for the shot to stand on. I take a shot like this from time to time but don't feel the urge to share it.
A technically excellent lens at a very moderate price is more than enough for me. The introduction of aberrations for character while interesting is nonsensical. Perhaps a Kilfitt Macro Kilar 90/3.5 is the way to go?
Forgive my ignorance but which lenses do you shoot with that are big on character? I haven't seen any swirly bokeh or very glowy shots from you that I remember.
Mistakes give me enough character, here's another result of opening the film chamber before rewinding (same roll as the guy with the furry hood above):
Thrice, please don't take offense. I was speaking about the lens, not your shots. I am saying like most CV lenses it is technically superb, but still rather boring. I am the utmost fan of swirly bokeh! I own a heap of swirly bokeh machines: 3X 5.8cm f/1.4, 85/1.8-H, 2X 3.5cm f/1.8 and I'm working on getting the king of swirls, the Nikkor 5cm f/1.1.
Now all of these are old and esoteric, and I've considering the CV 50/1.1, but I'm undecided. Most of my lenses have a ton of character, although my CV's are just plane jain good. Your shots are the best work I've seen from the lens, and I like the look, but I wish the bokeh was a bit more smooth. How is the finder cutoff?
The bokeh is quite smooth on film, seems to get more loCA on digital from the samples I've seen, unless my lens is a cherry
Finder cutoff isn't an issue but I don't use the hood (I don't seem to have any issues with flare). If you can imagine the 50mm framelines, the blockage is about a third in on both the horizontal and vertical framelines.
nice shots!
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
