Well you were right. I broke down and bought it. It's just so much easier and the tonality is often leagues better than my curves methods. Sometimes the color is still off a bit but then again I am developing myself and using a vintage uncoated soft focus Verito so......most likely theres something funky with those negatives . But colorperfect colorneg rocks.
I am pleased you found it useful too!
Looking forward to seeing more of your colour stuff!!
By the way did you notice if you scan everything (especially negatives) using "Colour Transparency" setting in Vuescan it improves things even further?
carstenw wrote:
Zalmy, I disagree! Lots of great shots, but a bit of pushy processing is needed to really bring it out! Black to white to make it pop, but you have mostly greys. More contrast. Great family and kid shots.
thanks. I'm not sure why they are all so muddy (these are lab developped and scanned and I haven't gotten the actual film back yet, so I may try a rescan, but I doubt that's the issue). I shot the film at 400. Which usually gives a nice contrasty image (not too much though)...
Some photos of my fat baby...
First 4 are with the RZ67, 65mm, Portra 400. Last is with the holga.
1. The Linebacker
2. couldn't fit him in the frame...
3. The onion inspector (these two passed)
4. "So if I do that I could be that thin?"
5. Blooper (had the holga set on bulb...) but I like it
That 4th photo is excellent zalmyb! Great framing and timing.
Simon Kennedy wrote:
I am pleased you found it useful too!
Looking forward to seeing more of your colour stuff!!
By the way did you notice if you scan everything (especially negatives) using "Colour Transparency" setting in Vuescan it improves things even further?
Thanks.
I actually just use Epson Scan with no corrections for a raw scan. I don't like Vuescans interface. You do a raw positive scan for your negatives right? That's what I read on the colorperfect website.
It seems that Rodinal (Fomadon R09) messes with Tri-X because I always get this darkish film base, like the unexposed silver was developed as well. It lowers contrast and makes it very difficult to get decent tonality. Tmax 400 and 100 doesn't behave the same, so it must be something going on with Tri-X.
not a fan of rodinal + tri-x myself makten. at least not in 35, where my results were less than stellar to be honest. the negatives look OK but my scans end up being too grainy and gritty for me.
my greatest success with rodinal has definitely been Fuji Acros. after that it's Delta 400.
this is for scanning. if I were printing, I probably wouldn't be using either, instead I would be going with Neopan 400. what can I say, Im a Ralph Gibson wannabe
After getting a new scanner I decided I had to get one of my clients to go for film instead of digital. This shot was used in a commercial for a school in Oslo which teaches stylists.
Used my Canon 7 and 50 0.95 wide open, and Ektar 100 film. Did shoot with my D800E and 85mm too, luckily the client preferred the film shoots too
corposant wrote:
Makten - you could always try DDX + HP5...
I've shot some HP5+ in the past, and THAT is grainy if you develop in Rodinal. A thousand times worse than Tri-X. I actually like the grain I get with Tri-X and Tmax in Rodinal, but Tri-X gets a very weird tonality. The histogram of the scan looks like a slope, with almost everything "pushed to the right", while still not overdeveloped or overexposed.
. But colorperfect colorneg rocks. 
