Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 1, 2003, 4:57 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

Quote:
maybe one day youl'll project that image again and then look at the 8x10 you printed and the you'll finally admit to all you missed
You must have skipped the part where I mentioned this was before I got a film scanner, but no matter. All I was trying to do was suggest a stop-gap measure to take prior to getting a scanner.

Even so, I find that it's difficult to compare a photo glowing on a screen with one printed on paper. No matter how fine the copy, because it's pigment and not colored light, it just never seems to have the same "pop."
bcoultry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2003, 6:01 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

no i didn't miss it. i know you know the value of images by the comments you have made in the past.

yes, looking at a chrome on the right screen and that beautiful pure light and color gives the third dimension to slides. even just looking at them in a slide viewer is outstanding.

printing an image after looking at a chrome can be somewhat of a letdown at times. but then it makes for a better challenge. the paper itself makes such a difference as the base. i prefer matte myself. 96 minimum brightness.

i worked a wet darkroom for many years. i have found that the concepts transfer readily to PS. i also find so many people without the experience have problems with these concepts and go nuts in PS. i feel so lucky to have shot film and did real darkroom work. it definately is an edge. when i bought my house 10 years ago i was prepared to drop about $4K on a wet darkroom. instead i purchased a nikon coolscan 1000. after that i never looked back. and i don't miss the odor of acetic acid. these days with a CS4000D for my slides and for B/W i go in the basement do a controlled process of the B/W film, dry it, and scan it.

all i ever here is, is it fast? can it go faster? or this is prints too slow. in focusing i will agree and frame to frame shooting also. but who really cares if a printer can print 30 second faster then another. it what it produces when its done that counts in the long run

ok i've bellowed enough. all in all we all will do it the way we want too. i will say no more on this.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2003, 6:23 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

I'm with you on the value of darkroom experience. At the very least, it helps one understand what's going on in Photoshop, but it goes way beyond that. I didn't spend the time in a darkroom that you have, but even my small amount gave me a huge jumpstart with digital. It also made me really appreciate the benefits of digital, not the least of which is the absence of all those stinky chemicals. Ah, and the things one can do digitally that are difficult at best when working with film!

But what is it with slides that makes me say they haven't the kind of resolution found in negative film or digital for that matter? Am I right on this or am I mistaking one thing for another?
bcoultry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2003, 6:40 PM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 56
Default

I always found my slides had incredible color - better than photos taken with film from the same camera.
Gwen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2003, 6:52 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

I think, though, that the difference isn't exactly in the color itself but is, instead, due to the fact that one is colored light (which glows) while the other is colored paper (which doesn't glow). That's what I meant about the "pop" of viewing slides. Essentially, I agree with you. It hardly matters which, in reality, has more color. What counts is how we perceive it and then react to it.
bcoultry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2003, 11:38 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcoultry
Before I had a film scanner, I took desperate measures and set up my slide screen in the basement (because it was dark), projected the slides onto the screen, then photographed them with my then 3 megapixel camera.
I've done this as well, with reasonable success. If the object is to transcribe thousands of slides going back decades, it's a good way of doing a quick and dirty job.

I take it one step quicker and dirtier by using a camcorder to film the slides onto VHS tapes, either directly using the camcorder's video output, or else on to Video8 first, then transcribing to VHS with the addition of an audio commentary. I get best results by projecting a bright image on to a 12"x10" white card, in a small, darkened room, with the camera close above the optical axis of the projector.

This process takes about as long as it takes to do a slide show. Using a filmscanner will give stunning results from good slides, suitable for huge enlargements to treasure & hang on the wall, but it takes an awfully long time.

Using a digicam will produce medium quality. It all depends on the intended end use, and time available.
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2003, 11:56 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcoultry
But what is it with slides that makes me say they haven't the kind of resolution found in negative film or digital for that matter? Am I right on this or am I mistaking one thing for another?
If you filmscan a slide you can get stunning quality, just as you could from a negative. Image quality from projection on a screen is subject to the characteristics of the screen, and it needs to be viewed from just the right distance and angle to see it at its best.

I used to do Cibachrome enlargements direct from slides, and the results, up 16"x12", hang around my house, in perfect condition after 20 years. Printing direct from slides meant you could assess colour balance by eye wihout needing a brain the size of a planet, as required for colour negative-positive printing. I don't think there's a significant difference in image quality. Because of the extra printing stage, contrast control is better with neg-pos, but colour correction is enormously easier with direct printing, and you could use dodging and burning-in to cope with excessive contrast.

Because Cibachrome is (was) a dye-destruction=bleaching process, the prints last a very, very long time, without modern problems of inkjet fade.
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2003, 10:31 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 394
Default Two cents worth?

I have a slide scanner and like the results....but Ialso have a Nikon 4500 and the Slide Copier(Nikon). To have good control of light I removed the frosted plastic from the copier and set everything on a light table for taking photos. If it is a good quality slide the results are also good and also much faster than my scanner. The SilverFast software and scanner process will likely do a better job but at the expense of a lot of time which if you have it to invest is fine. I typically carry a Leica point and shoot camera with slide film along with my digital stuff just because as much as I like digital, I also like slides as well.
normc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2003, 11:42 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

that all depends on the slide film you use and the ISO. i've shot kodachrome for most of my life at iso 64 and 80. grain was never an issue then with Kchrome 200 it did start to show but the speed advantage was the trade off. i'm one of those who rarely ventured above iso 100.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2003, 1:40 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

Quote:
I get best results by projecting a bright image on to a 12"x10" white card
Alan, sitting here thinking about it, it seems your white-card method might bring better results than my projection-screen method. First of all, my screen is one of those that's nubbly and sparkly (probably a name for this, but I don't know what it is), and it's possible that the bumpy, reflective quality didn't serve well for photographing the slides. Also, by projecting the images at a larger size than you do, I might have been introducing bits of distortion since those screens never seem to hang perfectly flat.

I'm going to have to take another crack at it, particularly since my current camera is 5, not 3, megapixels.
bcoultry is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:35 PM.