ricardovaste wrote:
Katie, post some examples both in colour and B&W? Hard to judge w/o actually seeing first hand what's going on. Also, if you're shooting film, you're not using one of those awful glassed adapters to get in on your canon are you ?
Yes, the crappy glassed adapter... I think that must be the issue. What I'm noticing is that the transition isn't nice from sharp to bokeh when using the Rokkors on the Canon. It must be image degrading from the adapter...
here's a scan from yesterday. I don't like tri-x either, so that might be influencing my view, but it seems like it's just off.
"Very nice shot. I am sorry about your loss. I almost missed it due to your unorthodox phrasing..."
Thank you. It's actually been close to ten years since she died. I always told my father "whenever, wherever" when he finally decided to scatter the ashes. The location is the dunes in Marina, Ca., a place where she had worked hard to stop a big development on the beach there. Seemed like a fitting place.
I thought that was a very touching image, I recall when I was young, we scattered my Grandfather's ashes at his favorite fishing spot, having just visited there recently, the memory was as fresh as yesterday.
Back to film, for some reason I just can't seem to get away from 35mm I've been so enjoying shooting with my Hexar lately, and I am finding myself now in the possession of a Nikon F3 which means I'll have all the more reason to continue shooting it. I do hope to go back to 120 film when I have the means to do so, but in all reality I have my doubts that I'd go back to 4x5 or larger.
ricardovaste wrote:
I got my test roll back today from my 645 AFDii. It seems to work fine. I'm contemplating using this for some outdoor portrait sessions so wanted to give it a test roll first, and see how the costings would work out. These are straight from the lab with no processing, I'm happy with them. This isn't the film I'd use though, but otherwise I think it could work. Just need to do something "real" with it now!
....
Nice. Such great colors and tonality.
I keep getting closer to picking up some flavor of the Mamiya 645 myself, even though I haven't shot film since my days shooting 35mm many years ago, and I've never shot MF.
I recently received the Pentax 67 135mm f/4 Macro lens. The lens close focuses to about 1:3, nice, but nothing to write home about in the macro department. Still, the imaging is pretty good.
I'm still fighting, or learning the limits of film, where it comes to resolution and detail. Same goes for developers (labs), where each seems to have its own spin on things.
The two rolls shot recently were processed and scanned by North Coast again. The "enhanced" scans only make JPGs, not TIF or RAW. As a result, I haven't done a lot of PP, but there are adjustments to sharpening, noise, WB, and exposure. Nothing major, just attempting to get it looking closer to what I'd like. Overall, the scans come back seeming a over-saturated and a bit too warm -- sort of like hitting the vivid setting on camera produced JPG -- not my favorite.
This post is in regard to the 135mm Macro, the next will feature the 165mm, including use of ext tube to get closer focus.
All shot on Pentax 67II, Ektar 100 (120 film), wide open f/4, at around 1/1000 sec, hand held.
This first shot is cropped to about 1/2 the full frame.
Besides the regular PP, these others are only slightly cropped and/or straightened.
These shots represent the 165mm f/2.8 lens, shot either wide open or stopped down to match the 135mm Macro (not shown here). I was doing comparison shots, and generally, I preferred the sharpness and details of the 165 over the 135, at least in this limited one-roll comparison.
Early morning sunlight doesn't seem to be the friend of Ektar 100. That's another thing I'm having to adjust to: when is it the scan that I find fault with, and when is it my lack of current experience with today's films? Again, most images came out too saturated for me, and I dialed back the warmth of the WB a little.
Pentax 67II, Ektar 100, f/2.8-4. The rose close-up is with the Pentax #2 extension tube, which is similar subject distance to the close focusing of the 135 Macro, but a little tighter AOV.
Same PP as above.
Here's the similar shot of roses with the 135/4 Macro at MFD, with slight crop.
In fact, I could imagine you enjoying such a camera. Developing 4x5 is not much more difficult than any other size, but you would need a larger change tent, if you don't have a dark room for changing film, and also something like the JoboDrum Expert 3010, which takes 10 sheets. Finally, you need some way to hang up the negatives to dry. The rest is the same. It doesn't even use that much liquid. If you have a flatbed scanner, then scanning is also not hard.
I've been so enjoying shooting with my Hexar lately, and I am finding myself now in the possession of a Nikon F3 which means I'll have all the more reason to continue shooting it. I do hope to go back to 120 film when I have the means to do so, but in all reality I have my doubts that I'd go back to 4x5 or larger.
