Looking good Makten, def. have to buy some of that ektar film! A question for you, do you use epsons software or anything else? From what I've heard Silverfast is supposed to be better... I have not confirmed this..
Gary Clennan wrote:
I really like #1 Martin! Great detail and contrast.
Thanks! That one was handheld at 1/90, which is "impossible" according to the people that don't want you to join their exclusive MF snobbery club.
Malkovic wrote:
Looking good Makten, def. have to buy some of that ektar film! A question for you, do you use epsons software or anything else? From what I've heard Silverfast is supposed to be better... I have not confirmed this..
I use Epson scan, often just the auto-everything mode. Then I open the TIFF:s in ACR to do some tweaks to color and contrast.
Silverfast is very un-intuitive and slow, but perhaps it could give better results. But I don't care when I get what I want from the Epson software.
Regarding the particular film: Don't overexpose it! The highlights blows much earlier than with other negative color films (look at the clouds in the second shot).
Martin, very nice shots. Ektar is really one of my new old favorites as well, a nice companion to Velvia 50.
It did see a slight purple cast in most of your images from the last weeks that I do not see in the two last ones above. Did you change your scanning process?
Morfeus wrote:
Martin, very nice shots. Ektar is really one of my new old favorites as well, a nice companion to Velvia 50.
It did see a slight purple cast in most of your images from the last weeks that I do not see in the two last ones above. Did you change your scanning process?
Yes, I've corrected the colors some this time, but not much. It could as well be the development, since I do it at home with a not very accurate temperature control.
Malkovich, I have used 3 scanners in the last year extensively. Minolta, Epson and Reflecta (Pacific Images in the US). I found that the software choice depends a lot on the scanner itself. While I found Vuescan significantly better that everything else on the Reflecta, the old Minolta software is very hard to beat on the Scan Multi Pro, which is my main scanner now. Silverfast is a joke IMHO. Hey, it's 2011 and the software ergonomics of Silverfast is like from 1990. I found it almost impossible to use AND get consistant results.
In addition, I really dislike the license policy of Silverfast. You have to buy a new license if you change scanners or buy a second one. Not very customer friendly, to say the least. Vuescan can be used on any scanner you use or buy in the future.
makten, i really like your shots! the pentax 67 sure looks very tempting the way you portray its capabilities...if only i were more of a bodybuilder
i have a question though: how do you process your color negative shots? do you use automated film profiles or do you unmask the films manually? since there are no profiles for the new portra 400 i wondered whether you have a hint?
Makten wrote:
Yes, I've corrected the colors some this time, but not much. It could as well be the development, since I do it at home with a not very accurate temperature control.
I noticed that too. Whatever the cause, 20 seconds of tweaks with curves can take care of it.
Makten wrote:
Ektar and Pentax 67II seem to like each other.
I agree, you have much more positive results than I was getting with that film. I'm trying Portra 400 now. Though I only have 35mm cameras right now. I noticed it doesn't like blown highlights either, would you suggest a slight underexposure on purpose? (I'm so used to a slight over exposure on my digitals)
weezintrumpete wrote:
Makten....gorgeous photos with the 67. I have to ask...how do you walk around with that thing? Mine is heavy! Perhaps I need to go to the gym more...
Thanks! I hate heavy cameras, but with MF it's a different thing for me. I keep the camera in the bag until I've found something to shoot. With digital I carry it with the strap around my neck, which makes heavy gear a pain.
Today I was out for 4 hours with the Pentax, and I only shot one single frame.
No gym needed. I'm ~150 lbs and never workout!
c00kiem0nster wrote:
makten, i really like your shots! the pentax 67 sure looks very tempting the way you portray its capabilities...if only i were more of a bodybuilder
Well, there are lighter solutions for MF. The reason for me choosing the P67 was that I wanted a 6x7 SLR that was made for handholdning. I know of only a few such, and the options aren't the best.
Right now I want a Bronica RF645 with 65/4 for "daily use". Or a Fuji X100.
i have a question though: how do you process your color negative shots? do you use automated film profiles or do you unmask the films manually? since there are no profiles for the new portra 400 i wondered whether you have a hint?
I just let the scanner software take care of the profile part. I have no idea of how it works, but it works. After that, I make some slight corrections in ACR, including sharpening and noise reduction (which is needed once you start tweaking the files from the V700). The end result is very nice, but for large prints I'd opt for a better scanner.
When resizing images for the web, I also sharpen and resample them in several steps to get the most detail.
AbramG wrote:
I agree, you have much more positive results than I was getting with that film. I'm trying Portra 400 now. Though I only have 35mm cameras right now. I noticed it doesn't like blown highlights either, would you suggest a slight underexposure on purpose? (I'm so used to a slight over exposure on my digitals)
I don't really know since I've only shot one roll this far. But I think you could use matrix metering at +/- 0, which per default will underexpose scenes with a bright sky a bit.
I overexposed the fence shot by 1 stop intentionally because of the large white area of the containers, but it should probably have been better with +/- 0 there too. The door shot was intentionally underexposed by 0.7 stop due to the dark areas which otherwise would have fooled the meter, and it turned out fine. I could have exposed even lower, as you probably can see.
Makten wrote:
Well, there are lighter solutions for MF. The reason for me choosing the P67 was that I wanted a 6x7 SLR that was made for handholdning. I know of only a few such, and the options aren't the best.
Right now I want a Bronica RF645 with 65/4 for "daily use". Or a Fuji X100.
I just let the scanner software take care of the profile part. I have no idea of how it works, but it works. After that, I make some slight corrections in ACR, including sharpening and noise reduction (which is needed once you start tweaking the files from the V700). The end result is very nice, but for large prints I'd opt for a better scanner.
When resizing images for the web, I also sharpen and resample them in several steps to get the most detail. ...Show more →
since i own a mamiya m645 i know that a light mf setup can be a bliss! i just need to get my hands on an 80 1.9...
as for the scanning issue my workflow seems to be pretty much identical, i'll probably have to get some more experience with the portra 400 to get the best out of it.
Perhaps I need to go to the gym more...
