Thank you, Denoir. Since I was flying blind with that film (hadn't used it before) light and shadow play seemed like a safe (though perhaps trite) bet.
Ah, what a difference a scan makes! I was about to terminate the whole using film project but not wanting to accept defeat I changed my mind in the last minute. I got an Epson v700 today to see what I could get if I did the scans myself. Well, I'll let the results speak for themselves. The first photo was scanned by the lab and the second by me:
Needless to say, I'm very pleased with the difference. The only complaint I can make is about scanning speed - ICE does a good job of removing dust and other things from the image but it is excruciatingly slow (20 minutes for a 6x7 frame). I guess I'll be doing the cleanup manually in photoshop from now on.
Even better, clean your film before it goes in the scanner. An air bulb blower, like one you clean your sensors with, works well, as does a fine tipped brush. 30 seconds cleaning prescan saves a lot of time later.
Yeah. Just be careful with canned air - sometimes they spray stuff out. I just use a Rocket Blower and a $1 paint brush. And I get the rest with the healing brush. Depending on the area of the negative, you can be pretty sloppy with the healing brush. Not that I advise that, but you won't wreck things like you might with the cloning brush, which you still need at times.
I like to use Edwal film cleaner, canned air (ONLY held upright), an Ilford anti-static cloth, and Q-tips.
Wet cleaning and Q-tips are, of course, a last resort. The emulsion really thickens when wet again, and is begging for damage if you're not careful.
What a difference with your scan made at home, Denoir. They should pay you for that first scan... :-(
This is Yosemite Valley, shot on Velvia 100. It could really be anwhere there has both snow and trees, so I need to scan some other, more dynamic or iconic shots that actually give more a sense of place. Also, the sharpness and depth of the image isn't well-represented on the monitor, which is likely my issue as I don't resize for web in a skilled or attuned way.
And K'T - I really like that cat shot. Pets are such great entertainment, especially peering cats, physically constrained but oh-so willing to pounce...if only this damn glass wasn't here, I'd get at you, etc. etc.
Well, I've been scanning like crazy. Not that I have much to scan, but it does take some time..
35mm, Tri-X. Dust on the negative or snow? Probably both:
These were my first shots with the 67. I was at the time interested in seeing wide open rendering of my only lens, the 90/2.8, at medium distances and trees were my subject of choice. Portra 160 VC.
Although I can't say that I'm displeased with the rendering of the 90/2.8, it's not quite what I'm looking for. I should have perhaps instead of a Pentax chosen a Hasselblad so that I could use Zeiss glass. To be honest, my Zeiss/Rollei 35/1.4 on a 35 mm camera produces more of what I'd consider a classic "medium format look" than the 67:
I am not a fan of color negative film in the first place. Velvia is much sharper, with more consistent colors and rendition. I know how to count on Velvia or Provia to render a scene. Ektar is not anywhere near as sharp from any of the scans I have seen and for me Portra 160 NC or VC is far better in consistency and sharpness.
.
