Scott Eaton

Lives in United States grand rapids, United States
Joined on Sep 20, 2005
About me:



Total: 128, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Alan2dpreview: I shot with Kodachrome before Ektachrome and Velvia. It's not so much I miss Kodachrome. I just miss being younger.

Kodachrome may have lacked dynamic range and had the lattitude of a razor blade and had proprietary processing, but it had better midtone detail over Kodak's sludgy E-6 emulsions. Kodachrome's brief run in 120 is what I miss.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2021 at 21:27 UTC
In reply to:

lbuclk=: I used to process slide film, not Kodachrome, and I don't miss doing it.

Since most labs ran Kodak control strips the only way to get maximum quality from Fuji E-6 was to manually process it. Fuji E-6 films required extended color developer times that wasn't quite in line with Kodak controls. So, labs were essentially under developing Fuji E-6, and this is why Velvia was so popular . It was the least sensitive to Kodak controls. Fuji Provia when given it's ideal processing run, preferably by hand, it had the same color density as Velvia with superior detail holding and far beyond any Kodak transparency medium.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2021 at 21:25 UTC

Color slide film nor color neg film "is corrected in processing". Color neg film can have some degree of color correction applied during analog printing because color C-type paper is essentially a color neg emulsion on a paper base, and by varying the CMY filter pack you can adjust the final color balance depending on sufficient negative density (exposure). Since 99.999% of film is going to be scanned (essentially taking a picture of the film with a digital camera) color correction is the same with either medium. Note Fuji Astia is still the highest lattiude slide film on the market with the demise E-200P.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2021 at 21:17 UTC as 14th comment

The above crops from Silverfast show siginificant sharpness improvement over the Epson and Vuescan samples. It's not's significant. Not sure what changed, the editor here needs to address it. Grain in film scans should be razor sharp, not soft and difficult to resolve. It's akin to shooting a camera scene test chart and having the AF be slightly out of focus. Once you achieve the highest rez scan you then resort to grain reduction because you've given your software the best data to play with. Next, color negative film, even if over exposed doesn't challenge scanners in terms of dmax or dnsity range. No need for multipass sampling. For high density slides such as Kodak Ektachrome or classic B&W films this can present some possible improvement.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2021 at 21:39 UTC as 75th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

brownie314: I don't get this. In order to share a film image online you have to scan it. Scanning is like taking a digital image of it (or it is exactly taking a digital image of it). If you can get the colors and look you want from film and a digital scanner - why can't you do it with a camera and post processing?

The only thing you need to get Brownie is you are right. Shooting film is like painting without showing anybody the painting, or spending a lot of time shooting a video and then never showing anybody the results. The definition of photography is communicating with images, It is not about shooting a bunch of chromes, putting them in a shoebox, and then arguing in an internet forum about how sharp your Leica glass is. Film shooters don't want you to look at their pictures.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2021 at 18:26 UTC
On article Ilford releases MULTIGRADE RC PORTFOLIO darkroom paper (19 comments in total)

If you're going through the effort of printing on classic B&W paper do it right and use fiber. RC B&W paper doesn't even have the density range of Color RA-4 papers and it was invented to be cheap and fast. Kodak Polycontrast + Dektol was superior anyways. Better density range....WAY better. Ilford Multigrade was only used for budget reasons, and Ilford developers are the worst. Just because Polycontrast no longer exist doesn't make it's inferior competitor any better.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2021 at 21:49 UTC as 9th comment
In reply to:

DaveShooter: Try to understand this: Kodak sold only one product - Colour negative film. EVERYTHING else was a sideline. If you were a 50 year old senior Kodak executive in 1998 you absolutely knew this. Any possible product had to be filtered through “Will this hurt colour negative film (CNF) sales?” Digital absolutely would hurt CNF sales so Kodak would take one step into digital and then two steps back. Nothing Kodak could game - owning Adobe, and Lexar, or entering into a partnership with Nikon – would have been as profitable as CNF sales. Had they done that, Kodak, in a completely different and less profitable form would have survived, but they did nothing, protected CNF and rode Kodak into the ground.

At one point in the early 90's Kodak Vericolor III accounted for 60% of professional print film saes industry wide. There were some professional labs that would only accept VPS III as the only emlusion. To hell with 400 speed or 800 speed print film. Unless you shot VPS at it's horribly generous 160 ASA rating (more like 90 under normal pictorial conditions) you were considered an amatuer. Or, you had to tolerate Koda's half ass attempts as 400 speed like VPH with it's muddy palette. Then Fuji came along, and pro photogs got sick of being locked into that single product stream. They ran screaming to digital and Fuji, and by the time Kodak figured out how to make a true 400 speed pro emlusion it was all over.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2020 at 20:16 UTC

Minolta was one of the first to dive head first in the AF / enthusiast segment and this is probably what kept the company going. Their Maxxum series was well regarded by amatuer shooters, sold well and ahead of the curve AF curve.....for awhile.

My issue is that AF aside these final gen SLRs were otherwise inferior to their older MF cousins. AKA the X-700 which still commands decent prices in the used market. Hold an X700 in your hand, compose as shoot, and then do the same with a Maxxum. The old cam is the better experience and better machine. The viewfinders were so darn good on the older cameras MF is a breeze.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2020 at 20:02 UTC as 32nd comment | 2 replies
On article DPReview TV: Scan film negatives with the Nikon ES-2 (279 comments in total)

Using a dSLR for basic film scanning is barely functional. It does not work for higher end scanning and it has nothing to do with resolution. Your conventional dSLR is optimized for normal pictorial brightness ranges and getting the most out of it. When you 'photograph' a piece of film with a dSLR you cannot fill the dynamic range of the camera with information. You either have a long flat toe or shoulder of no information. A dedicated film scanner running at a true 16-bit per channel (Drum, Imacon, Etc) does a proper job sorting this out and interpolating the density range. Basically your dSLR is only filling 8-bits or so of true density range information, which is why dSLR scans of conventional B&W films all look the same. If you've ever scanned 4x5 TriX on a drum you know what I'm talking about because you preserve the nuances.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2020 at 21:21 UTC as 59th comment | 4 replies

"Time-Appropriate".....good lord. We're using modern plastics, containers along with the benefit of modern waste disposal methods for the chemicals used. Not to mention recording the process with a digital camera. I would also hazard a guess that the original photographer would prefer the plates be scanned and images shared to preserve the memory of her cherished pet which was their intent, and if they had a smartphone they would have used that instead. Another attempt to push process over content.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2020 at 20:42 UTC as 2nd comment

My own opinion is that speed / frame correction is a drastic improvement over earlier reproductions and does not commit any historic injustice. If anything, IMO, the corrected speed rates are a revelation and historically 'correct'. Should 35mm MP film transfers from the 70s and 80's be limited to VHS resolution just because that's what was available at the time? What I don't like is the coloration. Was the 'AI' programmed by Crayola corp?

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2020 at 21:14 UTC as 46th comment

Model / Fashion / Commercial photography has always been about manipulating reality ; PP in digital post, or air brushing negatives. Even changing the focal length of a lens to explicitly flatten the facial features of a subject (add 'weight'). Might as well do your craft well like ST does.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2020 at 20:20 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

MrBrightSide: Talk about disruptive technology....
This accessory poses a serious, legitimate threat to the hegemony of full frame DSLRS because medium format film is to digital photography as Rembrandt is to those zoo elephants who push paint around a canvas with their trunks during zoo fundraisers.
Shoot film on a Pentax 645 or one of the European medium format cameras like Bronica or a Contax or Rollei that have those magical Old World lenses and prepare to have the veil lifted from your eyes.
Compare medium format film scans to the very best shots from your ConSoNikon and you will see digital photography for the snare and delusion it truly is.
Thanks for the tip.

BrightSide - So, taking pictures of medium format film with a digital camera (scanner) is better than taking pictures of the original scene with a digital camera? Yuh...OK. At least I did it old school with optical / chemical / analog printing , and even those results from 6x7 can't match a digital workflow. dSLRs aren't profiled properly for scanning film anyways. You can't get a full 16-bit per channel range when the density range of the film is barely filling 6-8bits of the camera's capture. Then again film shooters are just looking for random number generators anywas.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2020 at 19:23 UTC

Superia has always been garbage with it's heritage as a grocery store film with horrendous emulsion consistency. If you actually liked the cinema trend of orange & teal color grading it was for you. However, since film shooters today are after random number generators and screwy color casts it will do fine in single roll availability at the dollar star alongside the $1.00 burritos.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2020 at 20:01 UTC as 31st comment | 3 replies
On article Stellina: imaging the sky with a smart telescope (233 comments in total)
In reply to:

mermaidkiller: Would be a nice device, but I'd rather have a camera module with same functionality which can be popped into a 1.25" eyepiece barrel of any telescope. Then even large Dobsons or SCTs can be used which capture much more light.
The thing to overcome then, is in-sensor tracking (i.e. no need for a tracking mount such as Dobsons) but that feature is already technically available in a commercial product, the Pentax K1.

I dont think you realize how fast even low mag images move across the image frame in a telescope without motorized tracking assist. Sensor tracking at most would give you a few seconds of assist. Also, while SCTs can have large apertures they have have long focal ratios...F10 or higher unless you have a real exotic. Dobsonians have much shorter focal ratios...typically F4.5-6 depending on exit pupil requirements, and while this results in less magnification image brightness overall is much better. Go with the dobby for deep sky and save a lot of money.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2020 at 21:58 UTC
On article Stellina: imaging the sky with a smart telescope (233 comments in total)

Having been involved with Astrophotography for years...the concept is good, but the price and images quality here is silly. Any 10 yr old dSLR with the IR filter removed and a $300 tracking mount will utterly spank this thing, and this is not an exaggeration. These images might as well be crops from todays entry level dSLRs taken on a tripod in auto mode. For half the price you can get a pair of 100mm Binoculars, and the deep sky binocs will provide infinitely more shock and awe.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2020 at 21:49 UTC as 9th comment

I've tried to like RT..... and experiment with the latest version now and then, but always give up on it and go back to Canon DPP or Adobe. Default settings in RT look over processed / over-cooked, synthetic looking and I can never get images to look nearly as polished as the other two pieces of software. It takes half an hour of moving sliders after sliders around in RT to produce an image that looks 'natural' by default in Adobe or DPP in a few seconds.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2020 at 21:29 UTC as 19th comment | 5 replies

The link describes the intent of the project is to directly produce photographic paper positives , aka large prints, not transparencies. I'm guessing you could produce a very large transparency and backlight it like a duratrans, but for artistic purposes the direct to print approach seems more compelling. There have been a handful of studios in the U.S. that over the years have used an analog direct to print process , and years ago I recall a lab in Tampa that did this using a tweaked Cibachrome process.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2020 at 20:02 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

tkbslc: iPhone 11 Pro gets my vote. It's the first phone that makes me comfortable to leave my camera at home 99% of the time.

True, but the iPhone11 is actually owned by a large user base. This poll is actually a wish list :-)

Link | Posted on Dec 18, 2019 at 13:00 UTC

How about a poll based on gear people actually own vs forum warriors who dont even own a dSLR?

Link | Posted on Dec 18, 2019 at 12:57 UTC as 29th comment | 2 replies
Total: 128, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »