fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Film Is Not Dead Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 … 240

241

242 … 1709 1710 end

Post your recent film shots!

Jorgen Udvang
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.241 #1 · Post your recent film shots!

Thanks Edward. I can recommend the Fuji Proplus II btw. Available in Cambodia for $2 per roll. Next time, I'll check if they have it in 120 size as well.

Jun 24, 2012 at 11:46 PM

edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.241 #2 · Post your recent film shots!

Jorgen Udvang wrote:
Thanks Edward. I can recommend the Fuji Proplus II btw. Available in Cambodia for $2 per roll. Next time, I'll check if they have it in 120 size as well.

I think it is the same as Superia 200 also available in Thailand, so I doubt you can find in 120 size. I personally prefer the Superia emulsions to the Pro ones like Pro 160S and 160C but many will consider my statement as blasphemy

Jun 25, 2012 at 02:59 AM

Jorgen Udvang
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.241 #3 · Post your recent film shots!

edwardkaraa wrote:
I think it is the same as Superia 200 also available in Thailand, so I doubt you can find in 120 size. I personally prefer the Superia emulsions to the Pro ones like Pro 160S and 160C but many will consider my statement as blasphemy

That's interesting info, thank you. I think I'll still buy it over the border though. Not much chance of finding good quality film for 60 baht per roll in Bangkok.

Jun 25, 2012 at 04:04 AM

Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.241 #4 · Post your recent film shots!

acme_d wrote:
I suppose this counts:

http://www.oxide.org/share/18/uranium-rad.jpg

It's a contact exposure formed by the natural radioactivity of the Uranium bearing minerals in this rock:

Kodak Ektar 100 film; several days exposure in a shoebox.

/Acme

Whoa! How totally cool! How close was the paper to the rock? More details please!

Jun 25, 2012 at 05:48 AM

mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.241 #5 · Post your recent film shots!

Smashed by Mawz, on Flickr
Nikon FM2, Nikkor 28/3.5 AI, Ilford HP5+

Jun 25, 2012 at 08:24 AM

Toni Pukarinen
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.241 #6 · Post your recent film shots!

M6, 50 Cron, Tri-X
Shot from a window of a train.

Jun 25, 2012 at 03:54 PM

ken.vs.ryu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.241 #7 · Post your recent film shots!

how many reels did you plan to shoot?

the road photo is very nice.

Jun 25, 2012 at 11:43 PM

acme_d
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.241 #8 · Post your recent film shots!

Bifurcator wrote:
Whoa! How totally cool! How close was the paper to the rock? More details please!

The flat face of the sample was in contact with the emulsion. Similar to how a contact print is made - no lens.

All of the kinds of radiation emitted by Uranium will expose film to some degree, but in this case I think the exposure was mostly from Alpha. Every point within the hot areas of the rock is emitting radiation in all directions, so if Beta and Gamma, which are moderately and strongly penetrating, respectively, were major components of the exposure then the image would be foggy. Instead there is fine correlation between the hot veins and the resulting image, so weakly penetrating Alpha is the likely source. A second test with a layer of Aluminum foil between the rock and the emulsion would test this theory, as Alpha would be blocked.

BTW, in most parts of the world it's legal to own small samples of natural ore like this, given that it's entirely possible to innocently pick one up as just another pretty rock. At least a collector knows what it is and will take care to store it properly.

It's hot enough that carrying it around in your pocket would be a bad idea, though this doesn't stop similarly radioactive Thorite from sometimes being used in jewelry... Sealing it in an airtight (to block the Radon it offgasses) plastic container and storing it away from living areas renders it harmless. Reduce it to soluble forms (which are chemically very poisonous), attempt to enrich it, or collect a large quantity, though, and you could be in trouble.

/Acme

Jun 26, 2012 at 06:40 AM

Zaitz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.241 #9 · Post your recent film shots!

Great photos Katie. Love the open road feel in the first few. I need to get back on the road.

Jun 27, 2012 at 03:07 PM

R.Young
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.241 #10 · Post your recent film shots!

Great photos Katie. How do you develop/scan?

I just went to a friends to test scan a few shots I had developed a while back, was a little disappointed to find 3200dpi wasn't resolving much detail. I even tried 128000 dpi and there was no extra detail beyond viewing at around 12.5% in photoshop. I think I could have scanned at 1200dpi and gotten all the detail there was to scan. That seemed to be about enough to have a single negative fill the screen in photoshop, seems fine for online but no chance or printing very big.

That was using an epson 600 scanner. Would a better scanner resolve more details from 35mm film? My shots were taken on a contax 139q with Zeiss 35 1.4 lens.

Jun 27, 2012 at 05:02 PM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.241 #11 · Post your recent film shots!

From a good flatbed scanner I would guess that you should be getting at least 6-8MP, and from a drum scan, maybe 10MP or a bit more, depending on how you want to measure it. An SVGA resolution image seems a little poor

Jun 27, 2012 at 05:08 PM

R.Young
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.241 #12 · Post your recent film shots!

So is that the scanner then? I guess high dpi on a midrange scanner revolves less than a medium dpi on a high end scanner?

Jun 27, 2012 at 05:23 PM

corposant
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.241 #13 · Post your recent film shots!

I love film clouds.

Jun 27, 2012 at 07:18 PM

Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.241 #14 · Post your recent film shots!

"So is that the scanner then? I guess high dpi on a midrange scanner revolves less than a medium dpi on a high end scanner? "

More or less. Most cheap flatbed scanner top out at less than 2000 real dpi, no matter how many actual pixels are being produced, and sometimes a lot less than that. The best drum scanners hit real world numbers of over 7000 dpi at their highest resolutions, however the best are most definitely not the most expensive. Most transparency films can hold over 4000 ppi worth of detail assuming a great lens and careful shooting. A few films like K25, Velvia 50, T-Max100 and the long discontinued Tech Pan, can all benefit from the highest res scans, but that benefit is very very small - only worth while if you're making the largest of prints. More important is the dynamic range that the scanner is capable of recording. This is where you'll see a huge difference - up to three stops of additional shadow detail from a drum from a flatbed. Flatbeds max out at 2.8-3.0 if you're lucky while drums can routinely record 3.9 densities. There are other differences as well, but no need to write a book about it. Well, maybe there is a need, even in the digital age.

Jun 27, 2012 at 07:22 PM

redisburning
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.241 #15 · Post your recent film shots!

that's a really nice shot, and the look is to die for.

I hope the guys operating drum scanners have lots of business; I would hate to lose the opportunity to get my best frames done properly every once in a while.

Jun 27, 2012 at 08:47 PM

Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.241 #16 · Post your recent film shots!

Red - I operate my own drum scanner and have for the last about fourteen years now. I love scanning. There's a certain deliberateness about the steps it takes and then the gratification of seeing a digitized version of your image. As far as I know there are only two makers left and the quantities are very small. Aztek and ICG are it. For the time being we can still get parts and service, but I think people like me are going to start hoarding replacement parts in the form of spare scanners to be scavenged at a later date. We had nice light that day in Lompoc.

Jun 27, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.241 #17 · Post your recent film shots!

I finally followed up on the lab recommended by corposant: North Shore in Carlsbad, CA. The price for 4 rolls (1- 35mm FP4 B&W, 1- 35mm Ektar 100, 1- 120 Ektar 100 and 1- 120 Fuji 160S) came to just under $85 with shipping, develop, DVD burn. Basically, $1 per shot, which is pretty steep, but a savings over what I had been doing with the local lab. Quality is JPG, and pretty good, but needing considerable PP for each set. I'm not sure how long this infatuation will last at these prices, since I still need HD space to download and PP.

Quality is good, but certainly gritty for ISO 100, particularly with the 35mm. 120 from the Pentax is much better, but still no match for the output of the 1D mark II's 8MP RAW imaging. That was kind of disappointing. I'm sure drum scans would be outstanding, but who can afford that for fun?

So far, Costco has the lowest prices, 35mm-only, and lousy low rez jpgs on CD. Only good for proofing really, or 4x6 prints. My local lab is best with 18MP tiffs, but around $25 per roll. North Coast is in the middle with about $20 per roll when figuring the shipping, and upper mid quality on jpgs. I suppose I need to try my local lab's cheaper 6MP jpg option. I've got a Pentax 67 135/4 macro coming and would like to try the Leica R 100/4 macro on the Canon 1N, so perhaps then I'll try the local lab jpg option and see how it does.

The testing did confirm that my "new" Contax body and lens work properly, as does my "new" Pentax 67 165/2.8 lens. Good news there.

Anyhow, here are some images and the setups that made them. Mostly, but not all, shot wide open or slightly closed due to brilliant sunlight.

Contax N1, Zeiss 70-200/3.5-4.5, Ilford FP4

Same as above, Ektar 100

Pentax 67II, 165/2.8, 120 Ektar 100

Same as above, 120 Fuji 160S

Jun 28, 2012 at 01:45 AM

Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.241 #18 · Post your recent film shots!

Gunzorro - All I can say is that you get what you pay for. I got into drum scanning almost by accident, mostly because I was never satisfied with scan quality, even from the best places in L.A. It was a big risk to buy a used scanner, but one that paid off in a very short amount of time. There's an art to it and getting the utmost quality is not always easy. I see that you're in Simi. If you're ever going to be in the Marina area, swing on by and I'll make a scan for you just to show you how it's done.

Jun 28, 2012 at 02:50 AM

corposant
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.241 #19 · Post your recent film shots!

$85? Did you get the enhanced scans? Just get the budget scans - they are more than adequate for the web.

Jun 28, 2012 at 02:51 AM

R.Young
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.241 #20 · Post your recent film shots!

Thanks for the advice. I was quoted �48 for develop and scan two rolls of film here in London... So not sure whether to buy a scanner or just stop shooting film and use my 5d2. I certainly makes me appreciate just how convenient digital is!

Jun 28, 2012 at 03:16 AM

1 2 3 … 240 241 242 … 1709 1710 end
FM Forums \| Film Is Not Dead Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 240 241 242 … 1709 1710 end