That is smooth and the light and tonality are superb.
Zaitz wrote:
Portrait of Steel. Taken on Calumet C1 and 8x10 Ilford HP5+ with 30cm Heliar at f4.5 for 1/25 @ iso 320. Developed in Rodinal 1:25 for 5 minutes at 68� constant agitation in BTZS tube. I am happy with the exposure and development for my first time with the tubes. I need to get in tight for some really shallow dof but focus is tough with the dogs constantly moving!
Thank you very much! I am quite happy how it turned out. The north facing window gave some very soft light. I exposed and developed it much better than the same spot a few months prior. Over expose - under develop seems to be working better for me.
Here are a couple of comparison shots between 35mm and 6x7 medium format. This was sort of improvised - I happened to have a Leica M6 on one shoulder and a Pentax 67 on the other - both loaded with Velvia 50 - and got the idea to shoot the same thing with both. The Leica had a 35mm f/1.4 lens on it and the Pentax a 90mm f/2.8. It would had been a closer match with a 50mm on the M6, but I made due with what I had.
The results were as expected in one way - the detail of the medium format camera is in a completely different league. However, I did get some odd color variations between the shots - although they were scanned with the same settings and processed the same way. They were developed in the same lab, but I suppose there could have been some variation there that caused the difference.
The 135s still look pretty good, but it's hard to compete with the sheer size of MF film. Out of curiosity, why go out with two cameras loaded with the same film?
corposant wrote:
The 135s still look pretty good, but it's hard to compete with the sheer size of MF film. Out of curiosity, why go out with two cameras loaded with the same film?
By a coincidence. I don't generally shoot a lot with the Pentax and there was a Velvia 50 roll in it. At the time I shot this I had recently gotten the M6 and I had tried it with every film I had except Velvia 50.
Yeah, Velvia DR is about as limited as digital - without the ease of pushing the shadows in PP.
This is by the way that last scene looks with digital:
In addition, the 120 shot of the boat looks like a typical underexposed slide that was lightened by the auto exposure of the scanner. I might be wrong but thats the only explanation for the huge difference between the 120 and 135 version of that scene.
Heinz, the 135 shots areoversharpened. I used the same resize & sharpen function on both. In the 135 shot there isn't enough detail so there are artifacts.
Here's a comparison of the 135 shot at "native" resolution (2400dpi), the 120 shot resized so the subjects are the same size and an M9 shot, also resized in the same way. Note the difference in focal lenghts, 35mm, 90mm & 28mm. So the angles of view are a bit different - especially the 28mm is much wider. These shots were never intended for comparison or I would have of course used the same lens on the M6 & M9... They weren't even taken at the same time so you can't compare colors.
Still it does show something:
Obviously this isn't the best resolution you can get from the film, but it's what I get from my V700.
As for the difference in the colors in the boat shots, you may be right.
Not in my admittedly very limited experience. Look at this for instance, these shots were taken within seconds of each other, the first Velvia 50, the second digital (M9). They are straight from camera/scanner, only resized for web:
In the Velvia shot the sky is completely blown as are the shadow regions, while it is clearly within the dynamic range of the M9. And the M9 is not precisely known for its graceful handling of highlights. With negative film I usually get a better dynamic range than the M9 - especially a better handling of the highlights. Not so with Velvia 50.
Now I know one should expose to preserve the highlights when shooting slide film but in the case above there is no way I could have recovered the shadows had I exposed for the sky.
denoir wrote:
Not in my admittedly very limited experience. Look at this for instance, these shots were taken within seconds of each other, the first Velvia 50, the second digital (M9). They are straight from camera/scanner, only resized for web:
In the Velvia shot the sky is completely blown as are the shadow regions, while it is clearly within the dynamic range of the M9. And the M9 is not precisely known for its graceful handling of highlights. With negative film I usually get a better dynamic range than the M9 - especially a better handling of the highlights. Not so with Velvia 50.
Now I know one should expose to preserve the highlights when shooting slide film but in the case above there is no way I could have recovered the shadows had I exposed for the sky.
So what am I doing wrong?
...Show more →Not sure what you are doing wrong but my limited experience seems to agree. I slightly overexposed some Velvia and it looks horrible. I would much rather slightly underexpose it, especially since I prefer my photos a touch darker.
I err on the side overexposing Velvia, but looking at that scan on my crap screen I scan see your V700 isn't penetrating into the blacks at all. As for the highlights, how does the actual slide look?
The slide itself looks a bit better - there is more of the sky visible, although the underexposed areas are somewhat worse than what you see in the shot.
