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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 15, 2006, 8:00 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
MoonGypsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 394
Default

I know this is a digital forum, but has anyone shot any film lately? I've been shooting Fujichrome Velvia 100ISO film in a 1977 Minolta 35mm camera , and I've been blow away by the quality of the properly exposed photos. Since I use total manual controls on the camera(adjusting f-stops, shutterspeeds, focus, and remembering the 18% gray reflectivity balance of the cameras metering system) i've noticed an improvement in my photo's, andat $7.50 a roll, and $7.50 for developing a roll I pick better shots. Now all I need to do is figure out how to get from the slides to the hard drive, and then I can post some of these shots. I think in the future this will improve my digital shots,or at least use more of the camera functions of my Fuji to take improved snapshots.
MoonGypsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 15, 2006, 8:35 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 824
Default

MoonGypsy wrote:
Quote:
Now all I need to do is figure out how to get from the slides to the hard drive, and then I can post some of these shots. I think in the future this will improve my digital shots,or at least use more of the camera functions of my Fuji to take improved snapshots.
I have a slide scanner, but that's an expensive solution for occasional shooting. Take your slides to a DPE dealer and they should be able to scan them into a disc for you. But like you, I have some film I'm thinking I should use, too. I should dig out the old F2S (my son has my F3) and do some slides.


Norm in Fujino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2006, 9:51 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

Depending on where you have your processing done, you might be able to get a roll of film scanned onto a CD at the same time fairly cheap. Fairly low resolution, but suitable for web use. High resolution scans can be expensive.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2006, 12:00 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I have a friend who until recently shot slides. He wondered about switching to digital, so he had a service scan his slides and send him a disk. Their results were... pathetic. Color problems, very low resolution... he did much better on a flat-bed scanner with an adapter.

I would not pay to have a company scan your slides or negs until you know exactly what you are getting. Explicitly ask what resolution (horizontal, vertical and DPI) you will get.

Good slide scanners can be very expensive. But the results are stunning. Nikon makes the best, but they are upwards of $1000 (unless they've come down.) There are adaptors you can put on cheaper flat-bed scanners that can be clunky to use, but do work and the results aren't bad. Its a question of your standards and your willingness to spend money to meet those standards.

You have a good taste in film Velvia 100 is a very good film. If you take film very seriously, it will definitely improve your digital photography. Of course, you can also take your digital photography very seriously and it will improve a lot too.

There are some cameras that produce as good (some say better, others say almost as good) results as Velvia 100. They aren't cheap, but they do exist.

Eric

ps. I corrected my post. A quick check showed that the best dedicated 35mm scanner than I know (the Nikon CoolScan 5000) is $980.
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2006, 2:17 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 38
Default

Lots of semipros and pros still use film. A film scanner usually gives better results than a flatbed scanner with a transparency attachment and you can get a decent one for considerably less than US$2000. It may take some setup and finagling with the controls to get a decent scan though.
scoundrel1728 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2006, 4:47 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,232
Default

I still shoot some film, mostly print, with my SRT, also. How you scan your slides or negatives depends on what you want to de with them. If you want to turn them into prints of good size, ever, scan with all the rsolution you can get Say around 2400dpi or better). If you are only digitizing them for viewing on computer monitors and posting on web, you can save a lot of space by scanning at 300 dpi. Since I am never certain, I go with the higher resolution and downsize individual pictures as needed.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2006, 4:51 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 436
Default

I still have several excellent Contax 35mm film cameras (of different sizes) as well as Medium format...so I still shoot film.

I have a Microtek i900 scanner which is a massive 25lb 3200x6400 dpi flatbed that has a separate drawer that takes film carriers so that it can scan 35mm negatives and slides (up to 24 at a time) and Medium Format negs and trans (up to 6x9), large format 4x5. This allows the scanner to perform real glassless scanning just like a dedicated film scanner. It will actually handle negatives up to 8x10 (and anything in between) with a special insert.

Roughly, a 2400 dpi film scanner produces a (3000x2000) 6Mp image. A 3200 dpi film scanner will give you a (4535x3024) 14Mp image and jumping up to 6400 dpi gives a HUGE (9071x6047) 55Mp file that are well over 100Mb each as TIFFs. Medium format frames are larger still but when you consider that you can get file sizes like this from point and shoot 35mms as well as SLRs you can see why scanning is still a viable way to get into high resolution digital imaging.

The scanner not only has noise reduction as well as dust and scratch removal but allows you to'melt' film grain away.

This is only a 2400dpi scan.



Meryl Arbing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2006, 5:52 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Quick edit, I changed the price of my scanner quote.
The best dedicated film scanner that I know of is a squeek under $1,000. Not the $2,000 that I miss-remembered.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2006, 6:47 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
MoonGypsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 394
Default

Thanks everybody. The costs of the scannersare prohibitive. We have a local shop that might be able to scan though. I will check with them.

I've been shooting with both cameras(maybe more with the film camera), but going with the 35mm has opened my eyes to using my digital more effectivly. Shooting 300 pictures to get 5 isn't necessary for me anymore(slightly exaggerated). I'll try to even out my odds a little more to produce better shots. I bought some B/W film the other day. I wonder whatI can produce with that???
MoonGypsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2006, 7:40 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 436
Default

While many dedicated flm scanners are thousands of dollars...you can get a 2400dpi 35mm film scanner quite cheaply. Look on ebay for an HP Photosmart S20 scanner...they are about $280.

The Microtek i900 that I was talking about only about $600 new.
Meryl Arbing 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 4:13 PM.