carstenw wrote:
Wow Zaitz, the light in that one is stunning, apocalyptic! What building is that?
Thank you! It is the Minnesota State Capitol. Taken on break at sunset since it's one minute from where I work. I hope I can get some more compositions out of it soon. Tried tonight but the clouds rolled in too heavy.
I'd also like to try a double exposure at night. One when the lights are on the building since it's well lit. And then a long exposure for the sky once the lights go off at 11pm.
This is my Canon K2 (mint condition), and some pictures of Sofia in BW, developed and scanned at Costco, but there is something I don't like about the quality of these photos, and still I don't see problem. I think is the type of film (used fresh film). I suspect that Costco scanned them at low res. The lens are okay because I tested them in my Canon XT digital.
Here is the link to the photos taken with this Canon K2
kidtexas wrote:
Typical enlargers can do 6x9. Should be able to do an xpan neg with the right carrier. Or a glass carrier. Or a self masked 6x9 carrier. Or even black mat board cut to size.
By typical I mean a Beseler 23C. They are all over the place and pretty indestructible.
Interesting, but I have no where I can print here. They've closed all the dark rooms at the local schools for 'environmental' reasons.
I would like to also say that I LOVE the new Portra 400! I just got my first roll back today and it's just awesome. I'm way happier with the flexibility of this film over Ektar 100 (not that it's a bad film) I had numerous shots pulled to EI 200 and some pushed as far as EI 3200 and 6400 and it still gave a usable image. 400 is definitely the cleanest though.
AbramG wrote:
I would like to also say that I LOVE the new Portra 400! I just got my first roll back today and it's just awesome. I'm way happier with the flexibility of this film over Ektar 100 (not that it's a bad film) I had numerous shots pulled to EI 200 and some pushed as far as EI 3200 and 6400 and it still gave a usable image. 400 is definitely the cleanest though.
How does the dynamic range compare? With Velvia too? I guess I'll find out. We had some nice storms at sunset tonight. I REALLY screwed up I think. Wasted the Ektar and Velvia before it got really good . I hope I captured some of it on Portra. We'll see.
AbramG wrote:
I would like to also say that I LOVE the new Portra 400! I just got my first roll back today and it's just awesome. I'm way happier with the flexibility of this film over Ektar 100 (not that it's a bad film) I had numerous shots pulled to EI 200 and some pushed as far as EI 3200 and 6400 and it still gave a usable image. 400 is definitely the cleanest though.
Heh, how could images on the same roll have been pushed and pulled? I suppose you mean that they were just underexposed and overexposed with the same development?
Makten wrote:
Heh, how could images on the same roll have been pushed and pulled? I suppose you mean that they were just underexposed and overexposed with the same development?
Well it's "sort-of" pushing and pulling. Given the fact that it's C-41 film you don't have to do any special processing to effectively "push" or "pull" the exposure. At least that has been my experience with Ilford XP2 (which I read on their white-paper regarding the effective EI of the film)
So yes technically I'm just over or under exposing the film (however I'm using my meter set to whichever ISO I intended to get a proper exposure.)
Needless to say, it handled these changes very well. I imagine it would be even better if I had a scanner better than the Epson V500 but I'm happy with my results so far.
AbramG wrote:
Well it's "sort-of" pushing and pulling. Given the fact that it's C-41 film you don't have to do any special processing to effectively "push" or "pull" the exposure.
Um, no, it's sort of not. There is certainly a standard developing time for all C-41 film shot at it's native speed. There is also pushing and pulling guidelines which require DIFFERENT development times.
Here's an oldie from me. Experimenting with different scanning methods. Instead of using the carrier I just put a flat piece of glass on top of the film to keep it perfectly flat on the scanner bed. I got it a little crooked, but the result was much sharper than before. (for the V500 at least)
Note: This film was ruined by X-rays on this trip. This shot is actually ok but most of my low-light shots were toast. The airport scanned ALL of my film because they refused to hand check it, despite most of it being high speed. Lost a lot of good memories because of them
AbramG wrote:
Here's an oldie from me. Experimenting with different scanning methods. Instead of using the carrier I just put a flat piece of glass on top of the film to keep it perfectly flat on the scanner bed. I got it a little crooked, but the result was much sharper than before. (for the V500 at least)
Note: This film was ruined by X-rays on this trip. This shot is actually ok but most of my low-light shots were toast. The airport scanned ALL of my film because they refused to hand check it, despite most of it being high speed. Lost a lot of good memories because of them ...Show more →
It was damaged by hand-scanners? Please post some pictures, I'd love to see the damage.
Also, I'm very interested to see the Portra 400 results.
. I hope I captured some of it on Portra. We'll see. 