26 Aug
2011
26 Aug
'11
5:36 p.m.
On 26/08/2011 18:28, Tony Duell wrote:
While it's undoubtedly true that many amateur (and
professional)
photographers own a digital camera (I guess my Datacopy 300 on a PERQ
counts :-)). it undoubtedly untrue that no enthusasts still use film.
I use both -- more digital than film these days, but I still like my
Pentaxes and Mamiya 645s.
As for gtting prints from negatives, you can do it the
same way you
always did. Plenty od enthusiasts have enlargers still which can handle a
wide range of negtive sizes. I also believe that negative/tranparency
scanners exist should you want to go the digital route. it's not my
subject at all, but I would guess that the image processing needed to
turn the scan of a negative into a postive was fairly straightforward.
Most scanners that can handle film include that as part of the basic
functionality, though I've come across some misguided software that
believes the only form of negative is one with a colour mask.
Of course you can _make_ an enlarger too. There have
been many designd
published over the years, the only really critical bit is that the
negative and printing paer are both perpendicualr to the lens optical
axis (unless you deiiberately want them not to be to correct for
'converging verticals')
<grin> We had an enlarger at school but my first attempts at making
prints at home involved a cast-off 35mm slide projector with some of the
lens elements re-ordered :-)
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York