grahamgibson wrote:
The prior post was a local lab's scan. For whatever reason, their colors were way off on the white balance. Here's my take, scanned with the Sony A7IV and Sigma 70/2.8 Macro. Detail is about the same, but mine is also properly centered (theirs had cropped the left side a bit).
So it is actually a brown building vs grey? Wow, they were off. But this is often what happens with AWB in scanning/conversion. I find with NLP it often way over-warms an image if there is blue sky in it. So I turn the WB settings off and do it myself when the conversion is exported to LR.
You waited five years to develop that roll? What's the back story?
Thank you.
I have been shooting with my phone and digital cameras the last several years , but I felt a bit lost and tried to pick up film cameras again.
So I checked all my film cameras November last year and found out one of my film cameras still has film in with 13 shots was taken ( embarrassing ) .
At the moment I didn't even remember what was last time I shoot film and the film supposed to be expired , but whatever I just finished it. After developed I realized I hadn't been shoot film for exactly 5 years.
Shooting film slow me down , which I really enjoy it.
I mistakenly shot a roll of Tri X and left the ISO at 200 from a previous roll of Portra 400 and proceeded to over expose just a wee bit more as I do with Portra. I developed the Tri X @ 400 iso in Ilfosol 3 for 7.5 min. at approximately 68-70f and the negs came out with this sublime soft contrast and grain. Not much in regards to using the zone system, but an interesting aesthetic nonetheless. At first I was like...oh crap, but after scanning, I don't hate it. I was using an EOS 1V and EF 35mm 1.4.
johnld wrote:
I mistakenly shot a roll of Tri X and left the ISO at 200 from a previous roll of Portra 400 and proceeded to over expose just a wee bit more as I do with Portra. I developed the Tri X @ 400 iso in Ilfosol 3 for 7.5 min. at approximately 68-70f and the negs came out with this sublime soft contrast and grain. Not much in regards to using the zone system, but an interesting aesthetic nonetheless. At first I was like...oh crap, but after scanning, I don't hate it. I was using an EOS 1V and EF 35mm 1.4. ...Show more →
Desmolicious wrote:
So it is actually a brown building vs grey? Wow, they were off. But this is often what happens with AWB in scanning/conversion. I find with NLP it often way over-warms an image if there is blue sky in it. So I turn the WB settings off and do it myself when the conversion is exported to LR.
Yes, brown. I thought the other images on the roll had pretty decent WB though. This lab doesn't charge much extra for the scans anyways, so I always feel it worth the time savings. I was curious to rescan a few on my own. Sometimes I feel the lab scans get better colors than my own, but in this case yeah they were way off.
I've been enjoying the simplicity of the M2 and the compact LLL 35mm for carrying around on long walks. I was anxious that the Fomapan would do well pushed, but it didn't come out bad. It's not HP5 when it comes to latitude and tonality, but it produces completely useable negatives when pushed and developed in Xtol. Since the actual sensitivity is more around 280 or so, I tried to expose at 1,000 ISO rather than the typical two stop push for 400 film which would be 1,600 ISO. I'm interested to see what a roll would look like semi-stand developed in HC-110.
Some images shot on Contax 645 and Portra 400, lenses used: Carl Zeiss 80mm F2 planar and Carl Zeiss 35mm F3.5 Distago (unless they were all shot with the 80mm, can't remember)
adrianb wrote:
Some images shot on Contax 645 and Portra 400, lenses used: Carl Zeiss 80mm F2 planar and Carl Zeiss 35mm F3.5 Distago (unless they were all shot with the 80mm, can't remember)
As soon as I saw the Citroen I knew that was the Zeiss 80mm f/2 and Contax 645. Beautiful rendering. Have you had any reliability issue with the Contax 645?
