luminosity wrote:
You can still get Neopan 400? Where did you find this hidden stash?
I'm relatively confident in my ability to distinguish between some films. I don't think I would have guessed Tri-X in this case, though, which leads me to wonder how much digital processing you did after the scan.
I favor Delta 100 myself these days, and have gone back to using Pan F 50 sometimes.
Hmm, my local National Camera has some. I see many retailers do too. I thought it was only the 1600 that was gone?
I did do some processing. But I scan very flat to insure all the detail is there. I'd just rather do the editing in PS instead of screwing it up in the crappy scanner software. Contrast adjustments mostly.
M635_Guy wrote:
Nice Zach - that puppy is a great muse
Thanks! She is a lot of fun. I want to get some portraits on 4x5 or 8x10
I did do some processing. But I scan very flat to insure all the detail is there. I'd just rather do the editing in PS instead of screwing it up in the crappy scanner software. Contrast adjustments mostly.
Zaitz, I think very highly of you. You're a great photographer, and getting better all the time. But, I have to tell you this because I see this mistake regularly and it drives me crazy, particularly when it's in something like The New Yorker. It's "ensure," not "insure." .
I also scan things flat and adjust elsewhere. I don't do a good job, but oh well. Life goes on .
.....But, I have to tell you this because I see this mistake regularly and it drives me crazy, particularly when it's in something like The New Yorker. It's "ensure," not "insure." .
luminosity wrote: I did do some processing. But I scan very flat to insure all the detail is there. I'd just rather do the editing in PS instead of screwing it up in the crappy scanner software. Contrast adjustments mostly.
Zaitz, I think very highly of you. You're a great photographer, and getting better all the time. But, I have to tell you this because I see this mistake regularly and it drives me crazy, particularly when it's in something like The New Yorker. It's "ensure," not "insure." .
I also scan things flat and adjust elsewhere. I don't do a good job, but oh well. Life goes on ....Show more →
Thanks lol. I try to limit my typos but I wouldn't have even thought about that one.
Uzay wrote:
Leigh, amazing macros they're crystal clear
Zaitz, beautiful photo
Thanks!
The lighting here is crap but I just wanted to get a shot quick. New Heliar for 4x5 and 8x10. 20 aperture blades .
Joseph, let me be cruel, IMO this shot is not as good as your previous shots, greens look like artificial and the sky is strange. Since i'm a big fan of your shots i assume you don't get it wrong
.
.
Jun 06, 2011 at 09:17 AM