It's a heartbreaker

[Trius]

I can understand preferring B+W silver based film or K25 scanned on a drum scanner to digital -but 135 dye based color film scanned on a desktop scanner, the RD1 or a point & shoot. I don't get it. People shred the M8 as a POS and then happily use alternatives that deliver output that is clearly inferior to what can be obtained with an M8 (or 5D)?

I think it's about (a lot, at least) maintaining two work flows, two sets of gear that force you to shift mental gears.

 

[Ben Z]

Ben where in your above account is the cost for a scanner? So add at least $1000 dollars- I know you can get them for less but the results would not be to my liking and before you chime in, I’ve just reviewed your gallery so I’m 100% positive of this.

Except that my low-res gallery shots were scanned from 4x6 prints on a flatbed and I never claimed them as an example of what my Canon 4000dpi film scanner, bought mint for $250, is capable of.

You also seem to have some trouble with reading comprehension.

I do not need a scanner if I shoot slides. I can just as well set up my projector and screen as I've been doing for 40 years. The look is bigger and better, just more physical work to set up and take down.

 

[Nick R.]

I can understand preferring B+W silver based film or K25 scanned on a drum scanner to digital -but 135 dye based color film scanned on a desktop scanner, the RD1 or a point & shoot. I don't get it. People shred the M8 as a POS and then happily use alternatives that deliver output that is clearly inferior to what can be obtained with an M8 (or 5D)?

I'm curious Hank. Do you really equate the output of the RD1 to that of scanned color film or a digi P&S. I would have thought it was better than that.

-Nick

 

[Sailor Ted]

Nick,
I believe all HAnkg was saying is the M8 performs above the R-D1, color transparencies scanned on cheap equipment, and digi P&S cameras.

Ted

 

[HAnkg]

I was not comparing RD-1 to scanned 135 C-41 color neg or E6 slide film or a point & shoot. I was comparing it to the output from an M8 and 5D. I am not knocking any of those image making devives either, they are all capable of making great images. I am just making a point about the wide band of tolerance people have for the acceptability of the output of some devices compared to the M8.

 

[rsl]

I am one of the cranks, age 39...

I have found in the fine art market traditional prints sell at a ratio of 10/1 over digital. I see this trend gaining strength as buyers look for something less computer derived and more hands on.

Can't say I blame them.

Yes, rarity is pretty much what sets the value for collectors who are into that kind of thing. Actually that kind of collector probably would be better off collecting coins. Coins last longer and they're easier to carry around. You can frame them and hang them on the wall and brag about how much they're worth, same way you can brag about owning an Edward Steichen "Pond-Moonlight" "worth" 2.9 million. (At least if that's what you paid for it)

But before you bet the farm and your future on gelatin-silver you'd better do two things: (1) See if you can find some digital prints printed by a master digital printer and compare them with some gelatin-silver equivalents. (2) Check Black and White magazine and see what's actually being printed these days.

Let's face it, gelatin-silver is going to go away, not immediately, but not all that far in the future either. Rarity will keep driving up prices on gelatin-silver prints. But the real action in fine art photography already is in digital, and that's a trend that's not going to stop. You can bet the farm on that.