Here are more from the first roll. TMax400. Portrait aspect ratio. In web format they look fine (I think), but on the detail level they're horrid in comparison to what a 5D2 would yield detailwise. Is this what you guys experience or could it be a scan thing (with the lab I've chosen)? First the full image, then 100% crop unprocessed from each in the focal plane. I am using this very lens on the Canon 5D2 and it is super sharp in comparison. Or is it the ASA400, would ASA100 do it in another dimension (more 5D2 like)?
expecting 5d2 resolution out of anything other than a really expensive scan is just going to disappoint you, even with a film that can seriously outresolve the digital camera.
if you want results like that, TMax 400 can get you there with the right contrast levels but you'll need a scanning setup like Peter has got or you'll need to go medium format.
Love that shot Peter! I'm seriously considering the Mamiya 7 with the 80 and 50...
Here a few from the rest of that family apple picking session I posted a week or two ago. I didn't get to rescan the first few rolls, but I did a lot better on the next batch.
Portra 400 kicks some serious tush in the ease of scanning.
Most of these were with expired Portra 160vc (rated at 50).
RZ67, 110mm, Scanned by me on a Frontier 2000
1. [/IMG
2.
There was some crazy thunder going on, and the kids were laughing like crazy (and Estee was like "Zalmy!!! Get that shot", and I'm trying to keep Zusha from eating all the apples, and trying to focus wide open at 1/60 of a second... Not easy).
I got the shot.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
and some screw ups (I'm not sure f they were user error or an issue with my 200 back)
expecting 5d2 resolution out of anything other than a really expensive scan is just going to disappoint you, even with a film that can seriously outresolve the digital camera.
if you want results like that, TMax 400 can get you there with the right contrast levels but you'll need a scanning setup like Peter has got or you'll need to go medium format.
Hi and thanks Redisburning. The lab scans 13MB jpg's. I assume there can be no sharpness issue in the scanner, this is a "industrial" lab and supposedly the best around here.
When I look on the images from my roll, details are cluttered and mushy in a 100% crop (which of course is a misleading term here, but full scan resolution). I cant see how this could outresolve a digital camera unless I managed to misplace focus in ALL shots of this roll. This could of course be the case but if so the matte is terribly bad placed in my particular Contax S2 copy - and even if that was the case, I would expect some of the infinity shots taken at F/16 or so would still have shown good detail but they dont.
Thanks for baring with me on this. A more high resolution scan would just enlarge the already mushy detail areas, wouldnt it? Here's what (aggressive) sharpening does in full 13MP resolution, it reveals grain which size would just impede getting anymore detail out of it, no?
wfrank wrote:
Hi and thanks Redisburning. The lab scans 13MB jpg's. I assume there can be no sharpness issue in the scanner, this is a "industrial" lab and supposedly the best around here.
When I look on the images from my roll, details are cluttered and mushy in a 100% crop (which of course is a misleading term here, but full scan resolution). I cant see how this could outresolve a digital camera unless I managed to misplace focus in ALL shots of this roll. This could of course be the case but if so the matte is terribly bad placed in my particular Contax S2 copy - and even if that was the case, I would expect some of the infinity shots taken at F/16 or so would still have shown good detail but they dont.
Thanks for baring with me on this. A more high resolution scan would just enlarge the already mushy detail areas, wouldnt it? Here's what (aggressive) sharpening does in full 13MP resolution, it reveals grain which size would just impede getting anymore detail out of it, no? ...Show more →
I am with redisburning - with wet prints, you need(ed) really really good optics in the darkroom to go along with flawless technique at the point of capture to be able to print a 35mm negative bigger than what you would take for granted from a 5D2 today.
Nowadays with drum scanners, I have seen some amazing prints - Peter has shown me some huge prints from K25 that would give your 5D2 a serious run for your money.
However, a typical lab scan won't give you that satisfaction. The scanned image I posted above is not something I would make a mural from, which essentially what you are doing when you zoom to 1:1 on your scans. If you want the ability to check out pixel-level details, I would either get a grain magnifier, or shoot a digital camera and avoid film.
I'm with you corposant. And redisburning. I am starting to re-evaluate my approach to film. Grwoing up is another way to put it :-).
I've been lurking this thread for a long time, and you guys (and gals!) is the reason I went for a Contax S2. I've been here just to see the grain. Still my first approach to my first roll was the opposite. I am very used to what the Contax range does on the 5D2 and opened those puny BW 13MP jpg-files and did what I do with an everyday Contax catch on the 5D2. That is a no-go. If I want the character I see and love in you guys' shots I'll do it differently from now on. Here's another Volvo shot trying a bit to foster another character than what this lens do on a 5D2. I'm not even half way, just beginning the journey. Thanks for all inspiration! (cross post from the Zeiss thread)
And BTW, zalmyb, love the bleak colors of your shots. Wonderful!
I realize that many here shoot film for B&W, but for me I like film because of the colors and tonality - its definitively different than digital and even with PP its difficult to duplicate digitially.
These above images are great examples of what I love about film.
I realize that many here shoot film for B&W, but for me I like film because of the colors and tonality - its definitively different than digital and even with PP its difficult to duplicate digitially.
These above images are great examples of what I love about film.
It's a closeup shot of bristlecone pine roots in the White Mountains of California. Pretty cool place.
ken.vs.ryu wrote:
this neg must be a jawdropper. what's the line on top?
That's the fold of the negative sleeve. I rarely pull the film out of its sleeve when I scan at home. If I choose to print this image, I'll have a proper drum scan done. I don't trust myself. :-)
