Processed some film by myself for the first time yesterday, I'm quite pleased how they turned out. Just some random shots from the balcony. Bronica ETR w/ 75 mm f2.8 lens.
michael49 wrote:
35mm film doesn't really tempt me but every now and then I'm tempted my MF.
Yes, Michael, maybe that's what I should do, break out the Pentax 67II and see what happens. I just thought to try the N1 body since I bought it to test the lens. I'm surprised how much more detail an 18MP RAW from APS-C sensor has compared to an 18MP TIFF from ISO 100 35mm color film.
Gunzorro wrote:
Yes, Michael, maybe that's what I should do, break out the Pentax 67II and see what happens. I just thought to try the N1 body since I bought it to test the lens. I'm surprised how much more detail an 18MP RAW from APS-C sensor has compared to an 18MP TIFF from ISO 100 35mm color film.
Get a better scan!
I am not sure how much more detail a better scan can bring out. Even before digital, in the late 90s and the new generation of films, I normally kept 35mm for work up to 5x7, maximum 8x10. For work that I knew would require 8x10 or larger, I shot MF.
The last batch I shot was Ektar 100. I don't really know of slower 35mm color film, or what would be gained if I found it.
Yes, the scanner is really where the rub comes in. To get a high quality 35/120/4x5 film scanner, it costs far more than I am interested in spending, on top of the film, processing, and transportation cost. I would love to find a cheap, convenient, and high quality scanning method. So far, I haven't come up with anything practical and affordable.
A few more from that Ektar 100 roll on the Contax N1 and N 24-85 lens.
That's not "close" in my opinion. The digital image has much higher resolution even though it looks terrible for being a modern camera. Crappy lens I suppose.
Gunzorro - if you want to see some real gains from film, either shoot B&W, or break out either of your awesome medium format platforms and shoot some 120.
corposant -- I know what you mean, B&W can look sharper and have more contrast and artistic methods. I like to look at other's B&W, but I've had my day with it. I shot a lot of Tri-X and Plus-X in 4x5, and I don't see any way to get better images, other than larger film. Kind of did the Yosemite/Ansel Adams thing in the mid-80s. I've never been inclined to shoot even one frame of B&W in any of my digital cameras.
Yes, I'm thinking more about trying the Pentax 67 on a roll or two and see what happens. I've even got some new Ektar 100 and OLD roll of Kodak B&W (probably 60's vintage) that's been unrefrigerated in a broken wrapper -- curious if it would still be any good.
I would say, they are different.
I don't know that one is better than the other.
Some images seem to prefer one or the other though.
Just like some images prefer different paper.
Tom K. wrote:
Is it me or does film blow away digital?
Edward, what was the GXR's WB setting? It would be interesting to see the same provia shot with skylight filter, or GXR set manually to 5500K.
Also, provia looks underexposed in comparison. Do you remember the settings?
P.S. I noticed the separate thread so you can better answer there if you wish.
