edwardkaraa wrote:
Files are around 5000x3350 approximately.
I mean, if you are viewing an image at 100% on your monitor, how big would the print need to be on your wall to get the same equivalent sized image - 20"x30"? I don't think 35mm was ever meant to be reliably printed that large, unless processed/enlarged incredibly well.
I have always thought that 100% viewers would/will always be more satisfied with shooting digitally.
corposant wrote:
I mean, if you are viewing an image at 100% on your monitor, how big would the print need to be on your wall to get the same equivalent sized image - 20"x30"? I don't think 35mm was ever meant to be reliably printed that large, unless processed/enlarged incredibly well.
I have always thought that 100% viewers would/will always be more satisfied with shooting digitally.
You're probably right about the digital shooters. They would be horrified to see the grain at 100% magnification. As far as I'm concerned, I love looking at film scans at 100%. The grain structure is absolutely beautiful. What I don't like is what bicubic downsizing does to the grain. It amplifies it and distorts it. Someone should come up with some special algorithms to downsize film scans.
Mirko, as I said in the other thread, different films have different color responses and sensitivities, while digital seems less sensitive to color variations. It seems to be true that digital sensors are not sensitive to UV while film is very sensitive and turns blue
Just got back from the lab, dropping off three rolls of 120 film. All shot with the Pentax 67II (thanks corposant!). Two rolls were Ektar 100, shot with the 75/2.8 ASPH lens, wide open (or close to it with the 1/1000 sec limit), and one roll of ancient Verichrome Pan (60s-70s vintage) with the 150/2.8 (last shot with the 105/2.4), wide open as well.
That's all good -- 30 images in the can. No f-ups; good times!
Now comes the annoying awful part: the color won't be processed and scanned until Wednesday afternoon, which also applies to some 35mm film I shot Satuday and dropped off Sunday (the technician is out till Wed). The B&W is hand-developed only run once a week, so with the US holiday weekend approaching, I won't get to pick up that roll until next Tuesday (in fairness, it will be ready this coming Friday).
I see why I'm not a "film guy" any more. It's not that I hate film -- I don't! But I hate the wait, and the time spent running around, and the expense will be considerable for these four rolls with scanning. I'm so used to testing gear and running home to evaluate and compare the images, remembering exactly what went on while shooting a hundred or more shots. I'll be lucky to remember what location of these shots. (Reminder to self: Ronald Reagan Library)
I'm having serious withdrawls!
I'm looking forward to seeing how 120 comes out with their little scanner (commercial scanner, but not a pro drum type) at 18MB TIFF. And even more, will the B&W come out at all?? How will it look being scanned -- I'm really curious and excited.
I'd better calm down, or I'll burn out my adrenal gland by Wednesday.
Gunzorro, looking from the bright side, you have more time to shoot more film without worrying about post processing the photos you already took. Thats what I really like about shooting film
Gunzorro - you send your film to NCPS in Carlsbad - if you use a flat-rate small box, it's $6 and is basically delivered overnight (at least it is from LA). They have a two-day turnaround and will return via Priority. If you send out on Monday, you often have your scans/negs in your hand by Friday.
Separately, as I was told my Martin, I think the 105mm is _the_ reason to shoot that system. Use it more and post your images!
Edward -- Ha-ha!! That is just forestalling the inevitable PP on the scans! I prefer to do PP when the shots are still fresh in my mind.
I received a "new to me" Contax flash today, the TLS 360, which so much better than the TLA 280 that came with the N1 body. So, more stupid testing already begun.
corposant -- Thanks! I'll have to check out their prices for processing and high quality scans of the 120 strips, plus turn-around.
The 105/2.4 is a great lens and is what I used to take the pretty well known image of the Staples Center when it opened. But the 75/2.8 ASPH is a newer design and really terrific. Possibly the best lens made by Pentax in the "normal" range 45-200. But we are splitting hairs, the Pentax 6x7 lenses are all terribly under-appreciated, even that old 150/2.8 I used today -- really nice!
Love dipping into this thread when I have the time.. great to see the continued creative use of film!
Talking of having the time.. today I had time to shoot some film, put down the digital 'blad and pulled out the 1957 crown graphic and a box of very expired polaroid 59 4x5 film
Thanks to all the help and encouragement, I'm starting to get a handle on film in the digital age.
Today at the lab, I picked up one 24 exp. roll of Kodak Gold 200 and two 120 rolls (6x7, 10 exp each) of Kodak Ektar 100. Just process three rolls, and do 18MB TIFF scans = $74.50. Yikes! Something will have to give, and the first place to start is following corposant's advice and trying out other labs.
Here are the 35mm "yellow theme" (in contrast to another Jim's well regard "red") of a few of the 35mm images (maybe the Kodak box influenced me? ). Definitely a strong grain/grittiness to the images, but otherwise, they are okay. Color is getting better.
I'll post some Pentax 67II images in a minute.
This Zeiss 24-85mm lens is awesome! Very little distortion and great sharpness/color/contrast. AF accuracy is very good, and that's really why I bought the body -- to test the lens to make sure it is in working order.
After seeing the film results, the lens definitely needs to be sent to Conurus.
But then the N1 will be without a lens! I'll have to keep looking to try to find a deal on another lens if I'm going to keep using this body. To hedge my bets, today I bought a used Canon EOS 1n. I don't know it's condition as far as exposure and functioning accuracy, but supposedly it works. That will allow me to use my stable full of Canon and Canon-adapted lenses -- probably the smart way to go. I can always use this lens again, this time on Canon film and digital, after it comes back from EOS conversion.
I know I can be a pain in the ass, with all my considerations about film vs. digital.
The more I shoot film, especially 35mm, the more I see how important good (or maybe eventually great) scans can be, and the following PP to bring the images to the best look.
Still, 35mm is pretty minimum IQ standard in my opinion.
Which is why, I'm now so flipped out, seeing some decent scans off the rolls of film that came out of the Pentax 67II. Now we are talking about some decent quality! The 75mm f/2.8 ASPH lens is just incredible, and I feel bad for having let it lanquish to long. I previously owned the 75/4.5 and that was a great lens, along the lines of the Zeiss ZE 35/2 on smaller format bodies. Pentax really came through with the newer, faster lens.
See if you don't agree.
I made these images a little bigger to show off the IQ a little better. Almost all were shot wide open at f/2.8, unless forced to go to f/4 due to the top shutter speed of 1/1000 in blazing daylight. All shot handheld, on Kodak Ektar 100 film.
Back to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library for some photo-ops.
Berlin Wall, revisited
An Elephant in the Garden
Roosting Birds Make Statement on Reagan
Variation on earlier shot (100 soft focus, Alt thread)
Gunzorro wrote:
Today at the lab, I picked up one 24 exp. roll of Kodak Gold 200 and two 120 rolls (6x7, 10 exp each) of Kodak Ektar 100. Just process three rolls, and do 18MB TIFF scans = $74.50. Yikes! Something will have to give, and the first place to start is following corposant's advice and trying out other labs.
Dude, seriously? Send it out! You'll pay half as much.
Glad to see you enjoying your P67ii! PP on film scans should take about 20% of the time as a well-processed digital RAW should take. Now that you can (apparently, I haven't upgraded yet) get some curve control in LR4, it could take even less.
I actually have a hard time telling anything about the lens due to the extreme oversharpening. I think you should try handling those scans a bit gentler, especially when the light is that harsh. The last one looks good though!
Makten -- Thanks for your comments. I reduced my sharpening from "normal" to start out (down to 40), but went back to my usual LR setting of 60. The scans were very contrasty -- I had to raise the shadow setting to 80, which I've never done before. Maybe different for handling TIFF than Canon RAW. It's a learning curve, for sure.
I'm glad you liked the chair. It's not my normal approach.
Yes, the door is slightly corrected for distortion (barrel) and perspective due to being hand held. But it's pretty close to as-shot, just a little straightening.
Gunzorro wrote:
The more I shoot film, especially 35mm, the more I see how important good (or maybe eventually great) scans can be, and the following PP to bring the images to the best look.
Still, 35mm is pretty minimum IQ standard in my opinion.
Just a few thoughts on the above:
35mm has always been considered for amateurs, as well as photojournalists and low budget wedding photographers. All serious film photography was done on MF or LF. I know of several agencies I used to work with that didn't accept any material in 35mm format. As I mentioned in another post the maximum size I would print from 35mm is 8x12, which is in fact an 8X enlargement. However for best quality, I think 6X or below is a safer bet. To put things in perspective, the negatives from your Pentax 67 when enlarged only 4X will produce an 8x12, so the quality gain is really substantial.
As for the scan comments, imho film best use is in optical/wet printing, and in projection. It doesn't seem to do that well in scanning. Still good scans will produce beautiful prints, probably better than prints from digital captures. The worst thing that can be done to film is to be viewed on monitor screens. The loss of IQ is too great and it is not fair to film. That is why I stopped posting scans in other threads, because digital files are so much better for web viewing.
I'll have to keep looking to try to find a deal on another lens if I'm going to keep using this body. To hedge my bets, today I bought a used Canon EOS 1n. I don't know it's condition as far as exposure and functioning accuracy, but supposedly it works. That will allow me to use my stable full of Canon and Canon-adapted lenses -- probably the smart way to go. I can always use this lens again, this time on Canon film and digital, after it comes back from EOS conversion.
I think you should try handling those scans a bit gentler, especially when the light is that harsh. The last one looks good though!