He's a veteran technology writer, editor, and reviewer with more than 15 years experience. HIGHLIGHTS: Chris used to work in Men's lifestyle and tech. He's fascinated by how photographers create, considering the fact that he's legally blind./ He's the author of various product guides, educational pieces, product reviews, and interviews with photographers. Chris's editorial work includes not only editing and scheduling articles but also writing them himself. He provides oversight to all of the daily tasks, including editorial, administrative, and advertising work. But so too do modern-day cameras.Ĭhris Gampat is the Editor in Chief, Founder, and Publisher of the Phoblographer. The one local lab by me does a pretty great job. Sure, some labs use big drum scanners and Noritsu products. Instead, I’d aim to create a plugin for Capture One or Lightroom. Now, if the folks at Canon or Epson would create scanners with full-frame or medium format sensors, I think it would be a bit different. It’s easy to rack up nearly $700 for the entire package. To add salt to the wound, SilverFast 9 is pretty expensive. And I think that it’s too little, too late for the company. In my opinion, you don’t need Silverfast these days. Plus, you can shoot tethered into Capture One or Lightroom to get the photos and the look you want. But SilverFast and dedicated film scanners don’t have the convenience or quality of dedicated cameras.Ĭombine that with proper light and a solid macro lens, and you’ll get a wonderful image. The key to using a phone, though, is convenience. But use a dedicated camera and the quality will be better. Think of it this way: get a smartphone camera and take a photo. But why do that when the sensors just aren’t good enough? I also can’t believe that the processing power of the software is good enough either. Sure, SilverFast 9 is promising great dynamic range. Larger sensors give you better color depth and dynamic range. With a dedicated digital camera, you get a larger sensor. More importantly, film scanners use small sensors. It’s accompanied by a blog post here on this site. Take a look at the video above and what photographer Alastair Bird did. Some of the best scans we’ve seen in recent times have been from DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. Ever gotten your film developed and scanned? Most scans are pretty lackluster. Modern photo scanners have the frustration of a dial-up modem with none of the usefulness. But people are using scanners less and less. It’s not that people aren’t really shooting film (we’re all about the film renaissance). In their recent press release, they promise a lot of updates which you can read about on their website.īut you’re here on The Phoblographer, and we work to give you an informed opinion. But it’s always had a number of problems. So if you’re archiving your film or scanning it, then you’re probably working with this program, Epson’s, or Canon’s options. SilverFast is primarily designed to work with scanners. But more importantly, I don’t think the world really needs it anymore. Previous versions of the desktop program have been painfully slow. I’ll be honest, I rolled my eyes at the press release. I wouldn’t be shocked if a few of you rolled your eyes. The other portion of you is probably a bit surprised. Most of you probably don’t know what SilverFast is. I assume most of you will be in one camp or another. The press release for SilverFast 9 came to us last week. Last Updated on by Chris Gampat We’re streaming daily on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, and Spotify!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |