Re: I have a crazy idea about digitizing film images.

[Jeffrey Rogers <jeffreydrogers@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree completely. In my studio, I use a Leaf DCB 2
digital camera back attached to a Hassy system. I
have, on many occasions, shot transparencies mounted
to a piece of plexi and backlight by studio strobe.
Color and clarity is great, but it is a lot of
trouble. I too, have been comparing the quality of the
files from my new Fuji S1 with Provia slides scanned
on my Epson scanner and PHoto CD. The Fuji S1 is a
clear winner with a huge amount of difference in
clarity and color space.

--- Robert Erickson <cirkut8@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My theory is that the using an electronic flash,
> which
> has the full color spectrum to illuminate an
> original,
> could result in an image that may be superior to
> scanned files from sub $1000 film scanners.
> 
> The problem with ALL scanners, that no manufacturer
> will tell you, is that the light used to illuminate
> the film does not include the full spectrum of all
> colors. Scanner manufacturers are big on providing
> specifications on resolution but say little about
> faithful color reproduction or tonal range.
> 
> NO SCAN can equal the color and tonal range of an
> image that was shot with a modern mega pixel digital
> camera. I have made side-by-side comparison tests
> and
> have concluded that direct to digital wins by a
> country mile. For a while I used to shoot
> side-by-side
> both on 35mm film and with a digital camera. I would
> get Kodak Picture CDs made from the film at the time
> of processing. My Kodak Picture CD images looked
> sick
> in a side-by-side comparison on the computer. No
> amount of enhancement with PhotoShop could get the
> scanned image to equal the original digital image.
> Now
> I leave my film camera at home and shoot strictly
> digital. No more film, processing, or long hours
> alone
> in the darkroom. :-)
> 
> IMHO- If you want to make a print using an enlarger
> then shoot with a film camera! On the other hand, if
> you plan to use an image digitally then you are MUCH
> better off to forget about film altogether and shot
> a
> digital original instead. 
> 
> I am thrilled to trade a little less detail from a
> digital camera for more color and tonal range in my
> image files. It has been my experience that detail
> on
> the film does not equal detail in the final product
> anyway. Scanners are the weakest link in the chain.
> The really good ones cost thousands of dollars. When
> my students ask me which film scanner to buy I tell
> them to forget about it. They are better to spend
> the
> money on paying a service to scan only those images
> that they need to be digitized. 
> 
> For what it would cost to buy a film based Roundshot
> or Hulcherama and a high end scanner you can buy a
> few
> high end digital cameras, computers, inkjet
> printers,
> send your kid to Junior College, and take your wife
> to
> Hawaii. Then figure in the life long savings in film
> and processing costs. If you were to invest the
> savings you would retire a millionaire! 
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> =====
> Robert Erickson, cirkut8@xxxxxxxxx
> The Panoramic Network: http://www.panoramic.net
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in
> one Place.
> http://shopping.yahoo.com/


=====
Take care,
Jeff
http://www.jeffrogers.com
"There is a landscape greater than the one we see."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one Place.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/