Stephen,
Thanks for your two cents. I have a friend who shoots with film, scans with an Imacon, Photoshops (how I hate to use knows as verbs), prints to disk, send the disk to be made into negatives sized to what he wants and then contacts prints the negatives. Great results. Why is this a discussion of one or the other. Digital is another tool. I favor the darkroom, but digital has its place.
Doug
On Jan 14, 2009, at 10:23 PM, Stephen Attaway wrote:
<x-tad-smaller>Hi all:</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller>What an active debate! Why not use both? The new Ektar color print film and 400CN b&w scan beautifully. I use them with my trusty F2, leica, and contaflex. Gives me very nice 20 megapixel scans. In medium format, 400 CN for my 'cord, portra 160 and Astia slide film for the Rollei: over 70 mp scanned thru my Nikon coolscan 8000, although realistically there is no more detail in the scans than in a 30 mp digital back.</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller>On the other hand, if I'm going to go to the track or an event and fire off 400+ frames, I'll take my D300.</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller>Unless you are a pro and have to have the digital output from a mf back or 25 mp class camera, I think its cheaper and certainly more fun to pick up a Nikon 8000 or 9000 medium format scanner and use your old film gear as well as digital.</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller>I've settled on Astia and relatively neutral color print film for scanning. Their dynamic range is a good match for the scanner. I never could get Velvia's shadows to scan well without blooming or artifacts.</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller>Just my 2 cents.</x-tad-smaller>
