Best photo scanner under $100?
ChrisPlatt
for photos up to 8x10, strips of 35mm negatives and mounted slides.
The scanner will be used to scan images for email, webpages, etc.
Please don't bother to respond if only to tell me I must
spend several times that amount to get acceptable quality.
The Visioneer 8820 USB seems to meet all my requirements:
http://www.visioneer.com/products/flatbed/8820usb/
Has anyone ever used this model? Any feedback?
Can anyone recommend a better model in this price range?
TIA,
Christopher Platt
John
Rec.Photo Charters & FAQ
CONTENTS:
(1) What is this document ?
(2) What are "newsgroups ?
(3) When did all of this start ?
(4) How many groups are there ?
(5) What rec.photo groups currently exist ?
(6) What are the group charters ?
(1) What is this document ?
This is an unofficial revision of the charters as posted by Bob Atkins along with some
information on the USENET and rec.photo groups specifically. Bob's original charters can be
seen in their entirety at http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm
(2) What are newsgroups ?
The groups are part of what is called the USENET. Essentially they are a BBS (Bulletin Board
System) service that nearly every ISP (Internet Service Provider) provides but unfortunately they
also don't advertise. You can find just about any topic known to modern man in a USENET
group. If two or more people have a common interest, chances are there is a USENET group for
it !
(3) When did all of this start ?
The USENET is actually the predecessor to the WWW (World Wide Web). It was created
slowly in the late '70's as the Unix User Network. Initially it began a collaborative effort for
research and development by government, educational and large, private corporations such as
Tektronix
For more history of the USENET, I suggest looking at ;
http://www.google.com/googlegroups/archive_announce_20.html
http://www.vrx.net/usenet/history/
(4) How many groups are there ?
I'm not sure that anyone knows exactly how many USENET groups there are but currently my
system shows 32,120 though I'm certain the total number globally is more than 62,000. My ISP
has decided to "thin the heard" a little though I am surprised that they still carry so many as most
are in languages I don't begin to understand.
(5) What rec.photo groups currently exist ?
There are currently 22 groups. They are:
rec.photo
rec.photo.help
rec.photo.moderated (moderated)
rec.photo.darkroom
rec.photo.digital
rec.photo.film+labs
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
rec.photo.equipment.aps
rec.photo.equipment.films+labs
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
rec.photo.equipment.misc
rec.photo.technique.art
rec.photo.technique.misc
rec.photo.technique.nature
rec.photo.technique.people
rec.photo.marketplace
rec.photo.marketplace.35mm
rec.photo.marketplace.darkroom
rec.photo.marketplace.digital
rec.photo.marketplace.large-format
rec.photo.marketplace.medium-format
(6) What are the charters for each group ?
CHARTER: rec.photo.digital
Digital cameras, scanners, printers, software, PhotoCD
This group is for the discussion of all aspects of digital photography, including digital cameras,
scanners, image manipulation software, printers, and CD-ROM technology.
All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet guidelines (see
news.announce.newusers for guideline documents). This group explicitly prohibits the posting of
commercial advertisements or other promotional material, whether or not it
is in any way related to photography . Binary postings (i.e. non text postings) are prohibited.
CHARTER: rec.photo.technique.nature
Wildlife, landscapes, travel tips etc. This group is for the discussion of the techniques
involved in nature photography and other peripheral issues. It is not intended for discussions of
equipment except where a piece of equipment is directly related to some other technique issue.
Strictly equipment discussions should take place in the relevant equipment group.
Issues appropriate for this group would be ethics of nature photography, questions about
locations for nature photography, questions about how too most effectively *USE* equipment,
questions about projected flash techniques, questions about macro techniques, etc.
Examples of appropriate question involving equipment might be:
* What's the most useful fixed focal length lens for landscapes, 20, 24 or 28mm?
* Is a 300/4 or 400/5.6 lens more useful for wildlife work?
* Is mirror lock up really useful in nature photography?
* Is autofocus really needed for nature photography?
Inappropriate equipment related questions would be:
* Is the Canon 24/2.8 better than the Sigma 24/2.8?
* Is the Canon 300/4L better than the Sigma 400/5.6 APO?
* What's the best 100-300mm zoom lens?
* Does anyone have test reports on the Nikon 80-200/2.8?
All questions about specific items of equipment belong in the equipment groups. Tagging
on a nature comment such as "is lens A better than lens B - FOR NATURE WORK", does
*NOT* make them appropriate for the technique group!
All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet guidelines (see
news.announce.newusers for guideline documents). This group explicitly prohibits the posting of
commercial advertisements or other promotional material, whether or not it
is in any way related to photography. Binary postings (i.e. non text postings) are prohibited.
CHARTER: rec.photo.technique.people
Portraits, figure studies, weddings etc. This group is for postings related to the
photography of people This includes portraits, figure studies, abstracts, nudes etc. It is not
intended for the discussion of equipment except as related to other issues of technique. Suitable
topics for posting would include lighting, posing, models, releases, wedding photography etc.
Examples of appropriate question involving equipment might be:
* What's the best focal length for portrait photography?
* Do I really need to move to medium format for weddings?
* Are soft focus lenses/filters really useful?
Inappropriate equipment related questions would be:
* What's the best 85mm f1.8 lens?
* Should I buy a Canon or Nikon system?
* Are Sigma lenses just as good as Zeiss lenses?
These latter three questions all belong in the relevant equipment subgroup. All postings made to
this group should conform to existing Usenet guidelines (see news.announce.newusers for
guideline documents). This group explicitly prohibits the posting of commercial advertisements or
other promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to photography. Binary
postings (i.e. non text postings) are prohibited.
CHARTER: rec.photo.technique.art
rec.photo.technique.art Issues of fine art, framing, display
This group is for postings related to art issues in photography. These would include what "art"
really is, discussions of particular photographs and what makes them art, mounting and displaying
pictures as art, fine art photography etc.
All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet guidelines (see
news.announce.newusers for guideline documents). This group explicitly prohibits the posting of
commercial advertisements or other promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related
to photography. Binary postings (i.e. non text postings) are prohibited.
CHARTER: rec.photo.technique.misc
rec.photo.technique.misc - misc non-equipment posts about technique
This group is for the discussion of issues of technique which are not covered by any other
technique group. Such subjects might include sports photography, aerial photography,
architectural photography, scientific photography, photomicroscopy, copy work etc.
All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet guidelines (see
news.announce.newusers for guideline documents). This group explicitly prohibits the posting of
commercial advertisements or other promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related
to photography. Binary postings (i.e. non text postings) are prohibited.
CHARTER: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
rec.photo.equipment.large-format - Large format cameras and lenses
This group is for the discussion of any issues related to large format equipment. Large format
cameras are normally taken to be those which record their images on individual plates, rather than
on roll film, and in which the image size is 4" x 5" or larger. Such cameras are often referred to as
"view cameras" and focusing is normally achieved by observing the image on a ground glass
screen, which is replaced by the photographic plate prior to exposure. "Plate" in this case refers to
either glass plates, or individual sheets of photographic film. The 4" x 5" specification above is not
intended to exclude cameras using smaller film size, should they possess the other characteristics
of "large_format" or "view" cameras.
All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet guidelines (see
news.announce.newusers for guideline documents). This group explicitly prohibits the posting of
commercial advertisements or other promotional material, whether or not it
is in any way related to photography. Binary postings (i.e. non text postings) are prohibited.
CHARTER: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format - Medium format cameras and lenses
This group would be for the discussion of issues related to medium format equipment. Medium
format cameras are normally taken to be cameras in which 120 or 620 size roll film is used,
producing images in the range of 6cm x 4.5cm to 6cm x 9cm. The cameras used are typically
either single lens reflex, twin lens reflex or scale (or rangefinder) focusing. The discussion of
panoramic cameras using 120 film size would also be appropriate for this group.
All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet guidelines (see
news.announce.newusers for guideline documents). This group explicitly prohibits the posting of
commercial advertisements or other promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related
to photography. Binary postings (i.e. non text postings) are prohibited.
CHARTER: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
rec.photo.equipment.35mm - 35mm cameras and lenses
This group is for the discussion of all aspects of 35mm camera equipment. This includes 35mm
SLR camera bodies and lenses, 35mm point-and-shoot cameras, 35mm rangefinder cameras,
35mm scale focus cameras and 35mm half-frame cameras.
All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet guidelines (see
news.announce.newusers for guideline documents). This group explicitly prohibits the posting of
commercial advertisements or other promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related
to photography. Binary postings (i.e. non text postings) are prohibited.
CHARTER: rec.photo.equipment.misc
rec.photo.equipment.misc Other formats, tripods, projectors, bags etc.
This group is for the discussion of equipment not covered by any other equipment group. This
would include tripods, projectors and screens, camera bags, lighting equipment, batteries, flash
equipment, light meters, filters. Equipment related to digital photography or home darkroom use
should be posted to either rec.photo.digital or rec.photo.darkroom respectively, rather than in this
group. Postings about cameras not covered by the other equipments groups (e.g. subminiature)
may be made in this group. Postings about movie cameras using film (but not video cameras,
which are covered in the rec.video groups) would also be appropriate.
All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet guidelines (see
news.announce.newusers for guideline documents). This group explicitly prohibits the posting of
commercial advertisements or other promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related
to photography. Binary postings (i.e. non text postings) are prohibited.
CHARTER: rec.photo.equipment.film+labs
rec.photo.equipment.film+labs Film and commercial photofinishing
This group is for the discussion of photographic film of any format and type. It is anticipated that
the discussions will concern the imaging characteristics of the film and conditions under which
each film type of film will give optimum results. This group is also for the discussion of
*COMMERCIAL* photofinishing services, i.e. recommendations for and comments on
photo labs, It is *NOT* for advertising by such labs. Postings about film development related to
home darkroom use should be posted to rec.photo.darkroom, not rec.photo.film+labs.
All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet guidelines (see
news.announce.newusers for guideline documents). This group explicitly prohibits the posting of
commercial advertisements or other promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related
to photography. Binary postings (i.e. non text postings) are prohibited.
rec.photo.marketplace Trading of personal photographic equipment
rec.photo.marketplace will contain all "for sale" and "wanted" postings. These posting will be
restricted to the private sale of personally owned and used equipment. This newsgroup specifically
does *not* permit commercial advertising, postings by dealers selling or soliciting equipment, or
postings by amateurs regularly dealing in used equipment principally or incidentally for purposes
of financial gain. It is intended a forum in which photographers can sell, trade or request
equipment in connection with their individual photographic interests. Postings which receive no
replies should *NOT* be reposted for at least one week after the initial posting and should not be
repeatedly reposted without material change. Replies (other than factual corrections) should be
sent *only* by email and *never* posted in rec.photo.marketplace. Advertisers should include a
telephone number if possible in case there are problems with email connections (and email
problems are not unusual!).
rec.photo.darkroom Developing, printing and other darkroom issues
This newsgroup will contain postings related to all aspects of photographic darkroom use. As
such it will cover subjects such as the developing of slide and negative film, photographic printing
from negatives and slides, photographic toning processes and alternative chemistry. This
newsgroup specifically does *NOT* permit the posting of commercial advertisements for
products or services, even if they are related to photography.
rec.photo.misc General issues related to photography
This newsgroup will deal with postings on all subjects not specifically covered by the other
rec.photo newsgroups. Any and all postings concerning the recreational use of photography will
be appropriate for inclusion in this newsgroup. Such postings might include (but are not limited
to) announcements of photographic shows, requests for travel related photographic information,
book reviews, discussions of ethical issues, general discussions about the "death of photography",
discussion of the work of famous photographers, philosophy etc. This newsgroup specifically
does *NOT* permit the posting of commercial advertisements for products or services, even if
they are related to photography.
CHARTER for rec.photo.moderated
Rec.photo.moderated is a moderated Usenet newsgroup for the discussion of topics related to the
art and science of photography and that are of interest to the serious amateur recreational
photographer.
MODERATION CRITERIA
Articles must be relevant to the art or science of photography and of interest to serious amateur
recreational photographers, must be in reasonably good taste, and must conform to Usenet
guidelines. Suitable topics include: the technical aspects of photographic equipment, technique,
optics, film, photographic philosophy, ethics and conduct, photography as fine art, and
brief reviews of new products and announcements of events. Other topics may be accepted at the
moderators' discretion, with the main criterion being interest to serious amateur recreation
photographers.
Articles about topics usually associated with commercial/professional photography may be
accepted on a limited basis as long as they are relevant to serious amateur recreational
photographers. Thus, for example, postings regarding wedding photography may be accepted if
they meet the relevancy test, but articles regarding the business aspects of wedding photography
are not acceptable. Advertising is prohibited, except that brief notices of events, shows,
workshops, and the like will be considered if they relate to the art or science of photography
and are of interest to serious amateur recreational photographers.
Postings must bear the submitter's real name and contain a valid reply address. Authors that are
affiliated with or have other financial interest in manufacturers, distributors, or service
providers must disclose this fact in postings mentioning those products or services.
Picture (binary) postings are not accepted.
The moderators reserve the right to cut off the discussion of a topic when its "signal to noise
ratio" has dropped too low and reject postings on recently discussed topics. They will also
normally reject postings comparing or seeking comparisons of equipment, "what xxx should I
buy?" and "me too" postings, and postings asking questions the author could have answered for
himself/herself with a minimal amount of work. Flames will be rejected. Postings may be rejected
because of inappropriate crossposting, and postings to multiple moderated groups will normally
be rejected. (Approved FAQ's, RAD's, and CFV's are a special case.)
Tony Spadaro
recommending everyone trade in their digicams for some 11x14 Burke and
Hares -- could it be that you didn't read the charter there?
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"John" <jo...@darkroompro.com> wrote in message
news:pLecnVFZR7W...@News.GigaNews.Com...
ChrisPlatt
The photos, negatives and slides I intend to scan
are all made in a conventional darkroom.
I am seeking opinions from others, like myself,
who prefer working in a conventional darkroom
but who may, from time to time, need a scanner...
Excelsior, you fatheads!
-Chris-
John
>I don't believe my post violated this newsgroup's charter.
The acid test is, do you use it in the darkroom ? As in "This newsgroup will contain postings related to all aspects of photographic darkroom use."
>The photos, negatives and slides I intend to scan
>are all made in a conventional darkroom.
Whether you are scanning films, prints or taking a digital capture, the subject is still digital.
>I am seeking opinions from others, like myself,
>who prefer working in a conventional darkroom
>but who may, from time to time, need a scanner...
They do come in handy but the subject is still digital in nature.
Regards,
John S. Douglas - Photographer, Webmaster & Computer Tech
Website --- http://www.darkroompro.com
some dude
ChrisPlatt
of conventional darkroom workers more than those
of digital darkroom workers.
It's clear to me now that I was wrong...
Excelsior, you fatheads!
-Chris-
Tom Phillips
ChrisPlatt wrote:
> I posted here because I valued the opinions
> of conventional darkroom workers more than those
> of digital darkroom workers.
>
> It's clear to me now that I was wrong...
O.K. I'll jump in. My advice as a photographer who occasionally scans is
I have no recommendation. But frankly with cheap scanners I don't think
it would make much difference. The reason they're inexpensive is because
they use components of less quality yet claim high end specs (like high
d-max or bit depth) when in fact the components simply can't process and
deliver those specs. So, if it's just for cheapy web scans I'd go with
whatever brand, features, or software you like or feel comfortable with
and not worry about which one is best. Just being honest, though it
wouldn't hurt to check reviews.
No low end flatbed will offer a signal to noise ratio adequate for
slides, which exhibit a D-Max in excess of 3.2. Even my expensive Espon
1600 Pro does a so-so job of scanning transparencies. However, assuming
a low end scanner has a signal to noise ratio good enough for a dynamic
range of at least 1.8, any such scanner should be adequate for scanning
8x10 prints.
Jeff Novick
You might want to step up to the Epson 2450. While not a dedicated film
scanner, it will give surprisingly good results, especially with larger
formats than 35mm. I've been using one lately and it certainly does a better
job than any other flatbed I've ever seen.
Jeff
"Tom Phillips" <nosp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3DACADA7...@aol.com...
russbutner
You were not wrong! Perhaps your question would have been more suited for
the digital crowd. However, I have always been under the impression that the
purpose of these groups, was to help each other out in sharing information,
ideals, passions, relating to the art of photography. It is too bad that a few
petty, insecure individuals feel the need to "flame" other's when one asks a
valid germain question in regards to this art that we love so dearly. Let's not
forget the purpose of these groups, to share our knowledge, wisdom and passion
to our photography brethren.
Arv
some dude
Tom Phillips
optical dpi and suitable for pre press. I think the issue is no flatbed
claiming a dynamic range suitable for transparencies is worth the money if you
buy it for transparencies. They all claim high d-max, but d-max specs are
erroneously based on bit depth rather than on actual signal to noise ratios.
Thus when I say so-so, I really mean my 1600 does scan transparencies fairly
well for a flatbed, but not like a good film scanner. There's always noise in
the shadows. Then again, I didn't buy it to do high end scans of transparencies
so it's adequate.
For serious film scans, I'll use a film service bureau -- either drum or Leaf.
Tom Phillips
russbutner wrote:
> Mr. Platt
> You were not wrong! Perhaps your question would have been more suited for
> the digital crowd. However, I have always been under the impression that the
> purpose of these groups, was to help each other out in sharing information,
> ideals, passions, relating to the art of photography. It is too bad that a few
> petty, insecure individuals feel the need to "flame"
I actually agree the question was off topic; this is not a nsg on scanners.
Scanners have to do with scanning, not with photochemical processes.
Nevertheless....
John
>I posted here because I valued the opinions
>of conventional darkroom workers more than those
>of digital darkroom workers.
>
>It's clear to me now that I was wrong...
Perhaps but perhaps you could have simply said something like "I'm aware this is OT ..." and labeled it as such. Then perhaps something like "I'd much prefer to hear the opinions of those in this group in contrast to those that frequent the digital group."
Regarding the scanner, hold off a little bit. Canon has some new, inexpensive units that are about to hit the market.
Regards
John S. Douglas, Photographer
http://www.darkroompro.com
Dana Myers K6JQ
> I actually agree the question was off topic; this is not a nsg on scanners.
> Scanners have to do with scanning, not with photochemical processes.
> Nevertheless....
You guys, I've been a darkroom worker for a long time, and I've
been around this newsgroup for a long time. Digital equipment
is rapidly becoming part of the darkroom genre, even if it isn't
part of your darkroom workflow. Digital timers, digital exposure
meters, and even digital printers that produce conventional
photo paper prints.
Are we going to condemn all photographers that shoot film
and get prints made if their lab happens to use a Frontier
to produce the prints?
Rather than being rude to people that are mostly using film,
mostly practicing "traditional" photography (whatever that is),
perhaps we could be a little more polite. We're all sneeches
even if some don't have stars on their bellies.
Sending them off to comp.periphs.scanners or rec.photo.digital
doesn't necessarily make a big difference, and what skin off of
our collective nose is it really to accept that some film workers
will include digital steps in the workflow?
Trying to use the newsgroup charter to impede progress just reduces
the value of the newsgroup.
Dana
Dana Myers K6JQ
> On 15 Oct 2002 21:40:10 GMT, chris...@aol.com (ChrisPlatt) wrote:
>
>
>>I posted here because I valued the opinions
>>of conventional darkroom workers more than those
>>of digital darkroom workers.
>>
>>It's clear to me now that I was wrong...
>
>
> Perhaps but perhaps you could have simply said something like "I'm aware this is OT ..." and labeled it as such. Then perhaps something like "I'd much prefer to hear the opinions of those in this group in contrast to those that frequent the digital group."
Perhaps he could address you as "Your Lordship", John? C'mon,
be reasonable.
;-)
Dana
Tom Phillips
Dana Myers K6JQ wrote:
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>
> > I actually agree the question was off topic; this is not a nsg on scanners.
> > Scanners have to do with scanning, not with photochemical processes.
> > Nevertheless....
>
> You guys, I've been a darkroom worker for a long time, and I've
> been around this newsgroup for a long time. Digital equipment
> is rapidly becoming part of the darkroom genre, even if it isn't
> part of your darkroom workflow. Digital timers, digital exposure
> meters, and even digital printers that produce conventional
> photo paper prints.
Obviously you know not what an inkjet output is. Certainly not a photograph, not
in a "conventional sense nor any sense at all.
I've had a "digital" timer for nearly twenty years. My densitometer (a Macbeth
924) is older than that and has digital readout. What you suggest isn't related
at all to the issue of a scanner question in a darkroom nsg. Scanners are beyond
photochemical processes. Yet note I offered an answer.
Perhaps you might start your own rec.photo.digital_darkroom nsg if you feel that
strongly. Actual digital processes, scanning, and pixels (as opposed to a
digital timer readout) are an entirely different imaging process and medium than
true photochemical and photographic processes, if you haven't noticed.
> Trying to use the newsgroup charter to impede progress just reduces
> the value of the newsgroup.
Which is like saying referring to the Constitution impedes the progress of the
nation. I suspect there's a reason for nsg charters and different nsg's that
focus on different topics.
Tom Phillips
Dana Myers K6JQ wrote:
> John wrote:
> > Perhaps but perhaps you could have simply said something like "I'm aware this is OT ..." and labeled it as such. Then perhaps something like "I'd much prefer to hear the opinions of those in this group in contrast to those that frequent the digital group."
>
> Perhaps he could address you as "Your Lordship", John? C'mon,
> be reasonable.
Actually I think John's comment is reasonable. Chris didn't make it clear he wanted the opinion of film photographers. As an occasional reader/poster here I've participated in a fair amount of the digital discussion that goes on in this nsg (so much for your
criticisms...), because I believe in educating people on digital issues. But I'm here because there's a lot a good photochemical info that gets discussed and that's the major focus. We're photographers, after all, not digital practicioners.
Dana Myers K6JQ
>
> Dana Myers K6JQ wrote:
>
>
>>Tom Phillips wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I actually agree the question was off topic; this is not a nsg on scanners.
>>>Scanners have to do with scanning, not with photochemical processes.
>>>Nevertheless....
>>
>>You guys, I've been a darkroom worker for a long time, and I've
>>been around this newsgroup for a long time. Digital equipment
>>is rapidly becoming part of the darkroom genre, even if it isn't
>>part of your darkroom workflow. Digital timers, digital exposure
>>meters, and even digital printers that produce conventional
>>photo paper prints.
>
>
> Obviously you know not what an inkjet output is. Certainly not a photograph, not
> in a "conventional sense nor any sense at all.
Obviously, you know not what a Fuji Frontier print is. Certainly a photograph, in
every conventional sense. Just because you're naive with respect to the
state of the darkroom art is no reason to be critical of progress. Not every
lab has a Frontier or Noritsu digital printer yet, but they're not hard to
find in most metropolitan areas.
> Perhaps you might start your own rec.photo.digital_darkroom nsg if you feel that
> strongly. Actual digital processes, scanning, and pixels (as opposed to a
> digital timer readout) are an entirely different imaging process and medium than
> true photochemical and photographic processes, if you haven't noticed.
You are so gratuitously snide and yet so naive. My point is that a perfectly
valid darkroom flow, that involves souping film in developer and souping a
print in developer, increasingly involves pixels as an intermediate step.
My point is that digital equipment that intermediates in the flow of
photons is part of the darkroom genre and thus should not be banished
from a newsgroup which purports to discuss darkroom practice.
>>Trying to use the newsgroup charter to impede progress just reduces
>>the value of the newsgroup.
>
>
> Which is like saying referring to the Constitution impedes the progress of the
> nation. I suspect there's a reason for nsg charters and different nsg's that
> focus on different topics.
Oh heavens, you're comparing newsgroup charters to the Constitution?
Newsgroups reflect the state of the community, the charter does *not*
define the community. Newsgroup charters comparable to the Constitution!
Indeed! The Usenet is and always has been an anarchy with no central ruling
body, vastly unlike conventional government.
Dana Myers K6JQ
>
> Dana Myers K6JQ wrote:
>
>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps but perhaps you could have simply said something like "I'm aware this is OT ..." and labeled it as such. Then perhaps something like "I'd much prefer to hear the opinions of those in this group in contrast to those that frequent the digital group."
>>
>>Perhaps he could address you as "Your Lordship", John? C'mon,
>>be reasonable.
>
>
> Actually I think John's comment is reasonable.
It's not. John lambasted the guy for asking a question, and
then said it made a difference if the question was prefaced
with some kind of apology or explanation. The answer to the
question is the same in either case, so why not answer it
without the lecture?
> Chris didn't make it clear he wanted the opinion of film photographers.
Chris posted to rec.photo.darkroom; perhaps we could all give him the benefit
of the doubt and assume for a moment he's not a total idiot?
> But I'm here because there's a lot a good photochemical info that gets discussed and that's the major focus.
Of course. What's the impact of developing TX in Rodinal versus D-76 versus black coffee
when the darkroom workflow includes a digital intermediate step? That sounds like
darkroom practice and photochemical info to me.
> We're photographers, after all, not digital practicioners.
Exactly my point - if one start with film and ends up with a conventional
photographic paper print, who is to say they're not a "photographer" ?
Dana
Tom Phillips
Dana Myers K6JQ wrote:
> > Actually I think John's comment is reasonable.
>
> It's not.
Yes, it is.
> John lambasted the guy for asking a question, and
> then said it made a difference if the question was prefaced
> with some kind of apology or explanation. The answer to the
> question is the same in either case, so why not answer it
> without the lecture?
Why don't you ask *him*?
Tom Phillips
Dana Myers K6JQ wrote:
> Tom Phillips wrote:
> > Obviously you know not what an inkjet output is. Certainly not a photograph, not
> > in a "conventional sense nor any sense at all.
>
> Obviously, you know not what a Fuji Frontier print is.
Yes, I do. You said "digital printers" not "silver prints produced digitally."
I know of no photographer who does digital/silver printer output in their home
darkroom.
> Certainly a photograph, in
> every conventional sense. Just because you're naive with respect to the
> state of the darkroom art is no reason to be critical of progress. Not every
> lab has a Frontier or Noritsu digital printer yet, but they're not hard to
> find in most metropolitan areas.
>
> > Perhaps you might start your own rec.photo.digital_darkroom nsg if you feel that
> > strongly. Actual digital processes, scanning, and pixels (as opposed to a
> > digital timer readout) are an entirely different imaging process and medium than
> > true photochemical and photographic processes, if you haven't noticed.
>
> You are so gratuitously snide and yet so naive.
Your the one who's post was "snide." This discussion is over.
> My point is that a perfectly
> valid darkroom flow, that involves souping film in developer and souping a
> print in developer, increasingly involves pixels as an intermediate step.
>
> My point is that digital equipment that intermediates in the flow of
> photons
The flow of photons. Did you learn that photographic term at RIT?
Dana Myers K6JQ
>
> Dana Myers K6JQ wrote:
>
>
>>Tom Phillips wrote:
>>
>>>Obviously you know not what an inkjet output is. Certainly not a photograph, not
>>>in a "conventional sense nor any sense at all.
>>
>>Obviously, you know not what a Fuji Frontier print is.
>
>
> Yes, I do. You said "digital printers" not "silver prints produced digitally."
Oh, pardon me, I was only using the accepted industry industry term.
What does Fuji know anyway?
See: http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/Products.jsp?nav=1&parent=233840
What does Noritsu know anyway?
See: http://www.noritsu.com/ and select 'Products' then click on 'Digital Printers'
and see what kind of paper they print on.
Inkjet printers are called "inkjet printers".
Now, I suppose you'll start trying to draw a distinction between
professional and amateur darkroom workers since you're apparently
too proud to admit being naive of mainstream darkroom practice...
> I know of no photographer who does digital/silver printer output in their home
> darkroom.
Oh, look at that. I suppose you're saying you don't know anyone that has
what is called a "digital printer" in their hoem darkroom. You're right.
Guess what? This newsgroup is not now and never has been limited solely to
amateurs, it's *always* included people that work in professional darkrooms.
>>You are so gratuitously snide and yet so naive.
>
> Your the one who's post was "snide." This discussion is over.
No, Tom, you're both mistaken and snide and too proud to say
"Oh, look at that, there are digital printers in darkrooms".
I suppose that makes the discussion over - if so, just don't
respond to this post and carry on.
>>My point is that digital equipment that intermediates in the flow of
>>photons
>
> The flow of photons. Did you learn that photographic term at RIT?
I like that, the suggestion that I'm some high fallutin' RIT
grad that thinks I know it all. That's a hoot.
Dana K6JQ
da...@dioxine.net
Dana Myers K6JQ
>>John lambasted the guy for asking a question, and
>>then said it made a difference if the question was prefaced
>>with some kind of apology or explanation. The answer to the
>>question is the same in either case, so why not answer it
>>without the lecture?
>
>
> Why don't you ask *him*?
This is a newsgroup. John, or anyone else that wants to,
can read and respond to the post. He'll answer if he
wants to. Thanks for your concern.
Dana K6JQ
da...@dioxine.net
P.S. I can just see the look on the face of a professional
darkroom worker trained in using a digital printer when you
explain to him about "silver halide prints produced digitally".
Tom Phillips
Dana Myers K6JQ wrote:
> > I know of no photographer who does digital/silver printer output in their home
> > darkroom.
>
> Oh, look at that. I suppose you're saying you don't know anyone that has
> what is called a "digital printer" in their hoem darkroom. You're right.
Yes, I know I'm right. And you're a moron. The question here was "Best photo scanner
under $100?" for web page use, not darkroom use. Certainly not scanners for high end
digtal output on *photographic* paper. No one interested in a $100 scanner is using
high end digital/silver output. Thus the question would have been more properly asked
in scanner nsg. But I didn't mind. NO one heard any flames from me. You're the only
one doing that.
I may have misinterpreted what you meant by "conventional digital photo paper prints,"
but that's an easy mistake given your unprofessional inexactitude, lumping "digital
timers" in with actual digital processes, and the reality that most digital photo
affectionados consider *inkjets* to be real photos digitally printed and equal to
"conventional" photographic paper. No, that doesn't change the silly meretricious and
immature nature of your arguments here.
> Guess what? This newsgroup is not now and never has been limited solely to
> amateurs, it's *always* included people that work in professional darkrooms.
And, unfortunately, you. Ah well, trolls come and go...
> >>My point is that digital equipment that intermediates in the flow of
> >>photons
> >
> > The flow of photons. Did you learn that photographic term at RIT?
>
> I like that, the suggestion that I'm some high fallutin' RIT
> grad that thinks I know it all. That's a hoot.
Rather, an insult. Sarcasm. You have no apparent photographic education. Get it?
Realistically there's no such thing as "the flow of photons" in darkroom processes.
You just made that up. Photons "flow" (more correctly, travel) only in the sense of
electromagnetic waves, which "flow" stops upon exposure. At that point photochemical
processes take over .
Dana Myers K6JQ
>
> Dana Myers K6JQ wrote:
>
>
>>>I know of no photographer who does digital/silver printer output in their home
>>>darkroom.
>>
>>Oh, look at that. I suppose you're saying you don't know anyone that has
>>what is called a "digital printer" in their hoem darkroom. You're right.
>
>
> Yes, I know I'm right. And you're a moron.
Ooh, ouch. That smarts.
> The question here was "Best photo scanner
> under $100?" for web page use, not darkroom use. Certainly not scanners for high end
> digtal output on *photographic* paper. No one interested in a $100 scanner is using
> high end digital/silver output. Thus the question would have been more properly asked
> in scanner nsg. But I didn't mind. NO one heard any flames from me. You're the only
> one doing that.
You're making several assumptions here.
The discussion went from "Best $100 scanner" to "appropriateness of
digital discussion in rec.photo.darkroom", the subject shifted. That
happens in Usenet threads, you know.
> I may have misinterpreted what you meant by "conventional digital photo paper prints,"
> but that's an easy mistake given your unprofessional inexactitude, lumping "digital
> timers" in with actual digital processes, and the reality that most digital photo
> affectionados consider *inkjets* to be real photos digitally printed and equal to
> "conventional" photographic paper. No, that doesn't change the silly meretricious and
> immature nature of your arguments here.
You're all full of big words, Tom, but the simple truth remains - I used
the correct industrial term and also described the process (start with film
and end up on photographic paper). You're the one that jumped to an
incorrect conclusion. Now you're calling me a moron. Woo-hoo.
You're also full of big assumptions that aren't warranted from my
argument, which I'll summarize here since you're either too naive
or too biased to readily comprehend:
Digital imaging is a part of mainstream darkroom practice.
Immature? Meretricious? Moron? Unprofessional? Inkjets?
>>Guess what? This newsgroup is not now and never has been limited solely to
>>amateurs, it's *always* included people that work in professional darkrooms.
>
>
> And, unfortunately, you. Ah well, trolls come and go...
Ooh, another personal insult. You're the epitome of professional,
I'm certain.
>>>>My point is that digital equipment that intermediates in the flow of
>>>>photons
>>>
>>>The flow of photons. Did you learn that photographic term at RIT?
>>
>>I like that, the suggestion that I'm some high fallutin' RIT
>>grad that thinks I know it all. That's a hoot.
>
>
> Rather, an insult. Sarcasm. You have no apparent photographic education. Get it?
Where, oh where, did you make this jump? I could be stupider than a rock
and the fact remains I *properly* used an industry term and you argued with
me. That makes me ignorant. Right.
> Realistically there's no such thing as "the flow of photons" in darkroom processes.
> You just made that up. Photons "flow" (more correctly, travel) only in the sense of
> electromagnetic waves, which "flow" stops upon exposure. At that point photochemical
> processes take over .
Maybe I could say "digital intermediation in the path of light
from film to paper" and I'm sure that would just prove my ignorance
even further. Whatever! Anyone that actually understands the process
knows exactly what I'm talking about in either case, and arguing about
it is just being gratuitously ill-natured.
I thought you said the discussion was over? Heh-heh.
Dana K6JQ
da...@dioxine.net
John
>Are we going to condemn all photographers that shoot film
>and get prints made if their lab happens to use a Frontier
>to produce the prints?
Who's condemning someone doing that ? I think I just stated that the subject of digital equipment is OT for this group and it is. Do you personally own a Frontier ? And if you did, is it really darkroom work ? No.
"rec.photo.darkroom - Developing, printing and other darkroom issues."
But for the record I'll let you know the very second I use a scanner in my darkroom.
Dana H. Myers
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 02:36:08 -0700, Dana Myers K6JQ <k6...@arrl.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Are we going to condemn all photographers that shoot film
>>and get prints made if their lab happens to use a Frontier
>>to produce the prints?
>
>
> Who's condemning someone doing that ? I think I just stated that the subject of digital equipment is OT for this group and it is. Do you personally own a Frontier ? And if you did, is it really darkroom work ? No.
But, it's not. You're interpreting a very broad charter and narrowing it
in the process. You tell people that they're off topic and to take it to
another newsgroup. That's an awful lot like condemning when the person
is a darkroom worker.
> "rec.photo.darkroom - Developing, printing and other darkroom issues."
If I develop film myself, scan it, and take it to a Frontier to have it printed,
that's covered under this charter:
* Developing the film
* Other darkroom issues
> But for the record I'll let you know the very second I use a scanner in my darkroom.
I use one, though I admit I turn the lights on when I do. I also turn the
lights on when evaluating a print while wet. A "darkroom" isn't always dark,
the only time it's dark for certain is when a photosensitive material is
present.
John, the charter of this group is fairly broad, and people that are darkroom
workers are interested in how to best integrate digital techniques into their
darkroom workflow, I believe this is far better suited than either rec.photo.digital
(which is concerned with digital capture and printing) or comp.periphs.scanners (which
isn't necessarily concerned with photography at all).
I'm asking you, one friend to another, to stop shooing people away when they
ask about or discuss digital techniques associated with darkroom workflows.
If you don't want to answer or discuss the issues, just ignore the notes.
If you don't want to use digital equipment in your darkroom workflow, then
don't. Please don't make people unwelcome who are otherwise darkroom workers
just like you and I, that's all I ask, and I believe the charter supports
this. You know I'm not a troll, or a dilletante looking for a reaction.
Maybe Tom Phillips will even put his Roget's away looking for new words
to insult me with. I wonder if Marshall Mathers uses a thesaurus to craft
his wicked rhymes? ;-).
Dana K6JQ
da...@dioxine.net
John
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 02:37:30 -0700, Dana Myers K6JQ <k6...@arrl.net> wrote:
>
>Perhaps he could address you as "Your Lordship", John? C'mon,
>be reasonable.
>
>;-)
>
>Dana
Dana,
I'm not going to get into a mudslinging contest with you as I feel that this isn't in the best interest of the group or anyone involved. Something that is missing from your posts. Of course I've read through the many comments that you and Tom Phillips have made in response to my post. Tom's right on track of course. You can disagree with my post, Tom's post or anyone else's but your disagreement is not going to change the charters. I suggest that you consider that. Digital imaging equipment and techniques are on-topic for only one group. Rec.photo.digital. If you want to change that then I suggest that you talk to Helge Nareid <rpm-...@nareid.me.uk> about submitting a R.F.D. .
BTW, I am on occasion unreasonable. However this is not one of those occasions.
John
>I thought you said the discussion was over?
Hope survives ;>)
John
>> Oh, look at that. I suppose you're saying you don't know anyone that has
>> what is called a "digital printer" in their hoem darkroom. You're right.
>
>Yes, I know I'm right. And you're a moron.
Time out.
Tom, while I agree with you wholeheartedly, please keep it civil.
Also I do ask that we can this thread as it is now serving no purpose. We're all entitled to our opinions but in a public forum we should probably temper them with a smidgen of consideration.
Dana H. Myers
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:45:53 -0600, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Oh, look at that. I suppose you're saying you don't know anyone that has
>>>what is called a "digital printer" in their hoem darkroom. You're right.
>>
>>Yes, I know I'm right. And you're a moron.
>
>
> Time out.
>
> Tom, while I agree with you wholeheartedly, please keep it civil.
Let me get this straight - you wholeheartedly agree with Tom that I'm a moron?
;-)
Dana K6JQ
k6...@arrl.net
John
>>>>Oh, look at that. I suppose you're saying you don't know anyone that has
>>>>what is called a "digital printer" in their hoem darkroom. You're right.
>>>
>>>Yes, I know I'm right. And you're a moron.
>>
>>
>> Time out.
>>
>> Tom, while I agree with you wholeheartedly, please keep it civil.
>
>Let me get this straight - you wholeheartedly agree with Tom that I'm a moron?
Well .. .. .. .. , naw ! You is ejucated. Heh heh !
BTW, unfortunately I'm an expert on morons. I work for many of them. But then don't we all ? !
Tom Phillips
John wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:23:09 -0700, Dana Myers K6JQ <k6...@arrl.net> wrote:
>
> >I thought you said the discussion was over?
>
> Hope survives ;>)
I think it needs to end, John, before he invents another term like "digital
intermediation."
Dana H. Myers
You still pickin' on the way I talk? It *was* the best way I could
think of to articulate what I was thinking of, and I'll bet there are
a non-trivial number of other people that understand exactly what I meant.
Let's just call it even after you coined "digitally produced
silver halide prints", fair enough?
;-)
Dana
Tom Phillips
John wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 21:11:12 -0700, "Dana H. Myers" <da...@dioxine.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>Oh, look at that. I suppose you're saying you don't know anyone that has
> >>>>what is called a "digital printer" in their hoem darkroom. You're right.
> >>>
> >>>Yes, I know I'm right. And you're a moron.
> >>
> >>
> >> Time out.
> >>
> >> Tom, while I agree with you wholeheartedly, please keep it civil.
> >
> >Let me get this straight - you wholeheartedly agree with Tom that I'm a moron?
>
> Well .. .. .. .. , naw ! You is ejucated. Heh heh !
>
> BTW, unfortunately I'm an expert on morons. I work for many of them. But then don't we all ? !
Well, the term "moron" was considered eminently suitable for public use
and consumption by H. L. Mencken, who used it often ;-]
RICK5347
>I don't believe my post violated this newsgroup's charter.
The acid test is, do you use it in the darkroom ? As in "This newsgroup=
will contain postings related to all aspects of photographic darkroom =
use."
Regards,
John S. Douglas - Photographer, Webmaster & Computer Tech >>
Chris,
Your question is welcome here as the computer is the darkroom of the new age.
But, just to make John happy (and quiet) make sure you use that scanner near a
packet of Dektol.
And... John..... Lighten up.
Best regards,
Rick Rosen
Newport Beach, CA
www.rickrosen.com
John
>Well, the term "moron" was considered eminently suitable for public use
>and consumption by H. L. Mencken, who used it often ;-]
Mencken = iconoclast. I particularly like " I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty."
Tom Phillips
John wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 01:23:49 -0600, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Well, the term "moron" was considered eminently suitable for public use
> >and consumption by H. L. Mencken, who used it often ;-]
>
> Mencken = iconoclast.
True.
> I particularly like " I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty."
Whether inevitable or not, it generally does given enough time. Witness recent events. Personally, I think the cause is human passion for power and control,
not government per se. Either that or stupidity /:o)
Tony Spadaro
something he doesn't understand -- He'll lighten up real fast.
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"RICK5347" <rick...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021018033606...@mb-ba.aol.com...
Gary T'to
routine! When do you guys find time to be in the darkroom?
Gary
John
Between episodes and when skipping reruns. ;>)
Regards,
John S. Douglas - Photographer, Webmaster & Computer Tech
Website --- http://www.darkroompro.com
ChrisPlatt
in the scanner and digital imaging newsgroups.
They couldn't help much, since no one there was
a dedicated 35mm film user, but at least they were civil.
So I read endless reviews and comparison shopped.
The bad news is you can't have it all for under $100.
The least expensive model that can do a good job
with b&w and color prints, slides and negatives is
the Epson Perfection 1660 Photo flatbed scanner
with built-in 35mm transparency adapter, about $150.
Excelsior, you fatheads!
-Chris-
Tom Phillips
ChrisPlatt wrote:
> Since you guys were no help, I posted my query
> in the scanner and digital imaging newsgroups.
> They couldn't help much, since no one there was
> a dedicated 35mm film user, but at least they were civil.
>
> So I read endless reviews and comparison shopped.
> The bad news is you can't have it all for under $100.
I think that was the gist of my advice on cheap scanners, which I
believe I gave civilly.
> The least expensive model that can do a good job
> with b&w and color prints, slides and negatives is
> the Epson Perfection 1660 Photo flatbed scanner
> with built-in 35mm transparency adapter, about $150.
Epson makes a decent flatbed.
some dude
originally asked help for to insult them.
But the truth is there, although off-topic, there is not a single
flatbed scanner for-any-price that will scan a negative anywhere near
the way the negative actually looks.
Thanks for playing!
-sd