Zaitz wrote:
Posted this before but got a drum scan and re-edited it much cleaner.
It is incredible how much more detail the drum scan brought out - are you sending yours out to be scanned? Did your Epson just not penetrate as much into the blacks?
Thanks Dan/Thrice - Ektar has its moments for me, I much prefer Portra for anything with some good red/orange in it:
I will have to try some Portra 160 VC then With the added bonus of being able to match the exposure with my M9 (base ISO 160) more easily for a meter sanity check.
Thanks Nate, I developed 11 sheets of C41 tonight, 10 Ektar, one Portra 400. I made the booboo of scanning two of them while they were still 'setting' (they were touch-dry) and they gave off moisture onto the scanner glass and also went lighter (darker in the positive image) along the edged/corners!? Very strange, free vignette? Ahh well, they weren't life-changing images and I can always crop, plenty of film area, even if it does slightly ruin my careful composition EDIT: The negative seems to have recovered... odd.
Alas it is late and I have to be on-site far away and early tomorrow So no time to scan tonight, it's like getting a whole bunch of free photos! I shot most of these months ago.
You can see the darkening (and warping too! LF wide angles don't have distortion) on the edges here:
I will re-scan tomorrow now that the negative has recovered. I will also tweak the settings as this was basically auto and there's more clipping than there should be.
mirkoc wrote:
Very nice ''dramatic'' editing Zaitz. Did you switch left and right?
Thank you. The 'right' way is flipped from what I have here, but I edited it as is and didn't like it normal.
thrice wrote:
Gotta love those ektar colours! I've shot my whole box of that stuff! time to dev some C41 I think..
Great shot Zaitz, you're a real 4x5 inspiration for me. Do you scan most of the stuff yourself? I'm using a V700 and considering the betterscanning kit and fluid mounting for the better/trickier shots.
Much appreciated! I scan mine with an Epson 4990. I tape my negatives to anti newton ring glass and have it propped on pennies to get the optimal distance for sharpness. If I want a print I send it out for drum scanning, though I was disappointed with the last drum scans.
corposant wrote:
It is incredible how much more detail the drum scan brought out - are you sending yours out to be scanned? Did your Epson just not penetrate as much into the blacks?
Thanks Dan/Thrice - Ektar has its moments for me, I much prefer Portra for anything with some good red/orange in it:
Mamiya 7 - 43mm + Portra 160 VC
The drum scans show more sharpness and really show the grain. But they aren't that different, to be honest. Here is my original Epson scan compared to the drum in my previous post:
The edit in my previous post is after I edited the drum scan. I did global curves adjustments to shift the tones. I added some structure to bring out the detail with Silver Efex. And then I burned nearly every crack and shadow throughout the image in CS5 with the burn tool on shadow and a small brush. Then dodged the mid tones and highlights in a similar fashion.
corposant wrote:
Shots like that remind me how highlights can look so nice on film and atrocious on digital.
Just fyi - I find that Portra 160 has a lot of PP flexibility after you scan it.
+1. The way the highlights go with digital, especially around something like the sun, is ugly as heck. I can prevent that by underexposing enough and then pulling up the shadows in post but that isn't always the best route. Filters help in simple situations.
I bought 8x10 Portra 400 for high contrast situations for that reason. There is a lot of latitude and then I can process it myself. Velvia looks better than anything, in my opinion, but it's definitely gotta be perfectly exposed.
Zaitz wrote:
The drum scans show more sharpness and really show the grain. But they aren't that different, to be honest.
+1. The way the highlights go with digital, especially around something like the sun, is ugly as heck. I can prevent that by underexposing enough and then pulling up the shadows in post but that isn't always the best route. Filters help in simple situations.
I bought 8x10 Portra 400 for high contrast situations for that reason. There is a lot of latitude and then I can process it myself. Velvia looks better than anything, in my opinion, but it's definitely gotta be perfectly exposed. ...Show more →
It is great to hear that about drum scanning - there's always a temptation, but I think I'd reserve it for when somebody i know wants a "big" enlargement that's too demanding for my lowly scanning acumen. I thought your church shot turned out well regardless.
And to make everybody here suffer, I shall now blow some highlights myself:
Thrice - fantastic congrats!
Only four bad sheets is pretty impressive especially if you are developing yourself...
Looking forward to the C41.
Corposant that is a cracker...
You guys are almost getting me hooked on trying film again, if I did not have a bronica etrsi on a shelf telling me that I'm just not going to do it :P
But out of curiosity, if one were to buy a simple 4x5 camera, what would be a cheap/lightweight solution?
I would not like to spend too much money on such a project as it would cost me an arm and leg to develop 4x5 film in Oslo and I don't want to spend too much money on something I would most likely not use for long :P
Out of my C41 (I only processed 11 sheets) I had one bad exposure (severely under) and one missed focus.
Here we go, all except the portrait shot with the 75mm Nikkor-SW, the one with dark top corners accidentally shot wide open and overexposed 5 (!) stops, brought down in scanning, Ektar is amazing.
The portrait shot with the 135mm f/3.5 Zeiss Planar, wide open, purely natural light in a dim hotel room. This one was shot on Kodak Portra 400, all the others Ektar 100.
All shot on my Ebony 45s.
The colours are off on a couple, I am still getting used to Silverfast 8. I figured the bigger image size is befitting the larger negative, if anyone would prefer I toned it down I will re-upload at a smaller size.
You guys are almost getting me hooked on trying film again, if I did not have a bronica etrsi on a shelf telling me that I'm just not going to do it :P
But out of curiosity, if one were to buy a simple 4x5 camera, what would be a cheap/lightweight solution?
I would not like to spend too much money on such a project as it would cost me an arm and leg to develop 4x5 film in Oslo and I don't want to spend too much money on something I would most likely not use for long :P...Show more →
I think a Speed Graphic is a great choice. With a working focal plane shutter it opens up the use of old barrel lenses. It is pretty light and cheap and works very well. I use a Graphic as my own field camera. The drawbacks are not many movements and maybe a small lensboard for large shutters/lenses. Hard to find a perfect 'cheap' field camera. But I like the Graphics.
You may want to decide between a field or monorail camera. The field camera is much more portable because it folds up nicely. The monorail camera will have way more movements in general. You can find cheap Calumet CC400 monorail cameras. I got mine for $80!
Great shots thrice! I love the way film picks up and represents colors in a bright city.
Don't reduce the size, thrice, they are great the way they are. I'd be curious to hear some commentary from you on how you metered some of these scenes...
Interesting colors, Martin - I have some Provia 400 in my fridge. What's your impression of it compared to Provia 100?
Thanks for the compliments everybody - I have my moments.
corposant wrote:
Don't reduce the size, thrice, they are great the way they are. I'd be curious to hear some commentary from you on how you metered some of these scenes...
Thankyou
I basically find something that "looks" like a midtone and take that metering with a spot meter. Then I look around the scene metering the darkest and brightest parts where I want detail and try and do the math in my head to see if they will fit within the DR.
With my slide film shots I metered for the brightest areas I want detail, add 2~3 stops and exposed for that setting. I may have to try my negative technique with transparencies as they obviously exposed better.
With the added bonus of being able to match the exposure with my M9 (base ISO 160) more easily for a meter sanity check.
EDIT: The negative seems to have recovered... odd.
So no time to scan tonight, it's like getting a whole bunch of free photos! I shot most of these months ago.
