Timmyjoe
Veteran
Just keeping my fingers crossed that my Nikon Coolscan 9000 keeps chugging out the scans. The quality is fine for me, and it covers the film formats I still shoot.
Best,
-Tim
Best,
-Tim
Hasselblad X3 and X5 discontinued
- Thread starter Harry Lime
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 70
- Views 8K
jsrockit
Moderator
¨
Plenty of artists still use film and I certainly see scanned film printed as ink jet prints in galleries.
It might not be mainstream, but there is more to photography than amateurs and commercial pros.
HHPhoto
Well-known
Well, that is not correct. Film is used also by professionals.
The professional demand for film is even increasing in the following market segments: Portrait, wedding, fashion.
Cheers, Jan
jsrockit
Moderator
To me these choices reflect the low end and the high end. There isn`t something great at an affordable price that I know of...
HHPhoto
Well-known
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
How crazy priced, next to unknown to masses of film users scanners are related to it?
Huss owns the gallery and he is OK with scanning with camera.
Colton scans his color and bw negatives for books. I have them. They are good.
Bill Clark
Veteran
At our PPA affiliate, TCPPA, we conducted monthly workshops to help professional photographers as we all were operating our businesses. There isn’t any discussion on film or film vs. digital. It’s all digital.
Info:
https://tcppa.org/
Around 2003 maybe 2004 a guest presented would ask folks in the audience how many captured with film? I would venture to say it was over half maybe even three quarters still used film. By 2008 a speaker would ask how many captured using digital and 90 to 95% were digital. Now it’s 100% digital.
For me, there were several challenges with film that digital answered.
How did I analyze what I was getting during the film days? I had to use a Polaroid back. PITA.
How could I show a client what I was capturing with film? Just try to get them back for a review!
How can I offer as an option a group of wedding day photos I could upload to their electronic device at their reception to look at while on their honeymoon?
How could I transmit to audience members using wifi photos as I make them using film?
How do I immediately determine a good portrait from one that’s great using film?
How do I tell a client you need to wait until I get the film processed, including scanning, so as they can make their business cards, use on social media sites or face a deadline with a company HR department?
Get the idea?
That’s the way the business has gone, at least here.
brbo
Well-known
Skiff
Well-known
Looks like they have put the wrong picture online.
Because, quote from their test results:
"The reflecta RPS 10M boasts an effective resolution of 4300 ppi, thus reaching a solid 86% of its nominal 5000 ppi. Scanning at 10.000 ppi will not boost the effecitve resolution. With an effective resolution of 4300 ppi, the Reflecta RPS 10M trumps the long-standing frontrunner Nikon Super Coolscan 5000ED, which yields "only" 3900 ppi. Whilst the Reflecta RPS 10M reaches its 4300 ppi only at 5000 ppi, the Nikon 5000 does reach its 3900 ppi at a nominal setting of 4000 ppi. The actual difference in quality between the two devices - in terms of resolution, that is - lies in the difference of the percentage basis. They reach 98 - versus 86% of the nominal resultion."
A friend of mine has both, and he came to the same conclusion: Slightly higher resolution with the Reflekta. I have seen his scans.
And if you compare the price new of the RPS 10M to the used price of the Coolscan 5000, the price-performance ratio of the Reflekta is really good.
Because, quote from their test results:
"The reflecta RPS 10M boasts an effective resolution of 4300 ppi, thus reaching a solid 86% of its nominal 5000 ppi. Scanning at 10.000 ppi will not boost the effecitve resolution. With an effective resolution of 4300 ppi, the Reflecta RPS 10M trumps the long-standing frontrunner Nikon Super Coolscan 5000ED, which yields "only" 3900 ppi. Whilst the Reflecta RPS 10M reaches its 4300 ppi only at 5000 ppi, the Nikon 5000 does reach its 3900 ppi at a nominal setting of 4000 ppi. The actual difference in quality between the two devices - in terms of resolution, that is - lies in the difference of the percentage basis. They reach 98 - versus 86% of the nominal resultion."
A friend of mine has both, and he came to the same conclusion: Slightly higher resolution with the Reflekta. I have seen his scans.
And if you compare the price new of the RPS 10M to the used price of the Coolscan 5000, the price-performance ratio of the Reflekta is really good.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Wedding still done on film. Hipsters getting married too. Niche market, but exist in populated areas. I have seen film wedding pictures thread at LUF from London based photog. His wedding pictures are anti-digital and done in completely opposite way you described. Some are not in focus, some are not perfectly exposed. And according to this photog he is still not jobless after all of this.
Our daughter went on first long time trip alone with two film cameras. Then Mama asked her why not papa's digital, she told what film gives something different.
Skiff
Well-known
Look at the last sentence from one of the biggest European scanner distributors:
https://filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm120.html
"Since we and lots of our customers had many problems with the Plustek OpticFilm 120, we have taken that scanner out of our assortment."
Confirmed by a survey here on rff in which about 24% of users reported severe problems:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1589
brbo
Well-known
No, that IS what you get from Reflekta. The resolution is indeed there (far from that 10.000dpi of course), but everything else...
They can fool you and your friend with resolution numbers, but they can't fool most of the people that have seen proper scans before.
HHPhoto
Well-known
So what. Your events are one small part of the whole market, but not representative for the global market.
Get out of your 'bubble' and just have a look at all the labs who do huge business with professional film photographers.
Just some examples (on these sites you will find pictures and links to thousands of prof. photographers using film):
https://www.instagram.com/richardphotolab/
https://www.instagram.com/photovisionprints/
https://www.instagram.com/indiefilmlab/
https://www.instagram.com/thefindlab/
https://www.instagram.com/goodmanfilmlab/
https://www.instagram.com/carmencitalab/
https://www.instagram.com/impressionfilmlab/
https://www.instagram.com/lighthousefilmlab/
https://www.instagram.com/artisanfilmlab/
https://www.instagram.com/canadianfilmlaboratory/
https://www.instagram.com/statefilm/
https://www.instagram.com/fast.foto/
https://www.instagram.com/racquetstudio/
https://www.instagram.com/boutiquefilmlab/
https://www.instagram.com/sreda.photo/
On youtube who will also find reports about professionals using film.
Just two examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtZolt2hISg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQgVQeDv8Fk
And that are just a few of hundreds of labs worldwide which do significant business with professional film photographers.
This statement "professional photography is 100% digital today"
is simply wrong. Of course film photography is a niche. But a quite healthy and increasing one.
Cheers, Jan
Bill Clark
Veteran
HHPhoto:
You seem to know a lot about photography.
Can you point me to your web site and maybe I can learn something.
Never mind. Looks like I found photos on a model site.
Even tho I’m pretty much retired I’m always looking for ways to improve. I’m culling my past work I put on CD’s and now I have some from 2004 I’m getting rid of. Then working through each year. Then on to the many external hard drives. My first 500 gig external was a whopper case size compared to today.
Please hurry with your link as I’m getting ready to go to L.A. for a photo gig. The compensation is right!
Just thought, Mr. Gandy lives somewhere in the basin. I’m staying in old town Pasadena. And connect for lunch. Nice Italian restaurant, Gayles, I dine at when ever in Los Angeles.
All digital capture. Maybe my iPad mini will work! They don’t care about equipment I use as they like the results I achieve. Maybe take one reflector just in case I need some garlic light.
Smiles.
You seem to know a lot about photography.
Can you point me to your web site and maybe I can learn something.
Never mind. Looks like I found photos on a model site.
Even tho I’m pretty much retired I’m always looking for ways to improve. I’m culling my past work I put on CD’s and now I have some from 2004 I’m getting rid of. Then working through each year. Then on to the many external hard drives. My first 500 gig external was a whopper case size compared to today.
Please hurry with your link as I’m getting ready to go to L.A. for a photo gig. The compensation is right!
Just thought, Mr. Gandy lives somewhere in the basin. I’m staying in old town Pasadena. And connect for lunch. Nice Italian restaurant, Gayles, I dine at when ever in Los Angeles.
All digital capture. Maybe my iPad mini will work! They don’t care about equipment I use as they like the results I achieve. Maybe take one reflector just in case I need some garlic light.
Smiles.
Ted Striker
Well-known
Hilarious. Rip roaring hilarious. That page has listed that long before Plustek discontinued the OpticFilm 120. Further, that page has so many errors about the 120, that it is completely and totally discredited. Just one of many dozens of errors: "The Plustek OpticFilm 120 is a very slow film scanner. In order to scan medium format films in high quality a very powerful PC with much memory is needed."
Abject nonsense. I used my OpticFilm 120 hooked up to a simple MacBook (not Pro). The CPU was all of an Intel M3, with just 8 gb of RAM. The scanner worked just fine. I guess a MacBook is a powerful computer!
The survey here at RFF is nothing but anecdotal evidence. It provides no information at all. None. If you cannot understand why an uncontrolled survey is useless, then I cannot help you.
Plustek sold the OpticFilm 120 for well over 5 years. By ANY metric that's a successful product.
Faintandfuzzy
Well-known
Speaking of anecdotal evidence, or none at all...you've been preaching that Fuji stopped film production years ago...only to have been proven incorrect there as well. You've been remarkably silent on that.
Don't demand hard evidence from others when you have made baseless claims made upon nothing but vacuous opinion.
Ted Striker
Well-known
We'll see. As others have noted, Fujifilm's recent move is profoundly inexplicable. Some have suggested that Fujirilm will be rebranding some Ilford Film, as they did for their monochrome C41 film.
Regardless, I have over a 10 year supply of Acros stored across 5 different freezers. I wont be buying any Fujifilm film anytime soon.
HHPhoto
Well-known
HHPhoto
Well-known
LOL.....
Seems there is a competition between all these conspiracy theory people who can made the most absurde theory.
Ilford cannot made a film like Acros. Period.
Fujifilm has explained that Acros II will also have unique reciprocity characteristics. And Ilford - nor any other film manufacturer - does not has that technology (Provia 100F is also unsurpassed in that regard).
Fujifilm has also said Acros II will have again extraordinary fine grain - something which Ilford also is not best at. Acros is finer grained than TMX and Delta 100.
Cheers, Jan
Ted Striker
Well-known
Fujifilm's ridiculous actions make theories like this more than likely.
Why discontinue a film without mentioning a replacement film is being developed? Absolutely 100% ridiculous. It seems profoundly impossible that they could be so irresponsible to their customers. There was an absolute stampede to get all of the remaining Acros because everyone thought, that was it. No more. I bought over $2000 worth of Acros myself.
Now we learn that Acros will be back, even better, a year later.
This is so stupid as to be not believable. Even Fujifilm is not that stupid.
A very plausible theory is that Fujifilm had no idea their film was in such demand, and to quickly recover from their mistake are re-labeling a film toll manufactured for them from some other coater of film. That's why we never heard about Acros II while Acros was being run dry. That film would have sold out easily even if we knew another film was coming. It took all of 1 week for supplies to dry up. Hardly any stock was available.
All of Fujifilm's talk about finer grain, etc about Acros II is just that: talk. They have proven themselves to be loose with the truth in the past and so none of their marketing spiel is worth the electrons it's printed with.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
