The scene will also have a huge impact on showing differences. Scroll down and you'll see an example where Portra, Ektar, and Velvia look very similar. But in the above link they are vastly different. I love Velvia at sunset and sunrise for the warmth it injects. http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/
Those newest scans you posted remind me of raw files. Very flat and need some punch added. The problem with comparisons is every method of inverting color negatives will give you different colors. No one can really say which is 'correct'.
michael49 wrote:
Maybe I should shoot some slide film, I've always shot negs because I've been afraid to shoot slide film because of the narrower latitude in exposure, but maybe its time to give it a go.
i like your edit Peter, thanks. Maybe its time to finally pony up for PS - thousands in gear and I still haven't bought PS - I've been pretty happy with LR.
I'll have to look at some Ektar examples. How about Velvia - anyone use that for general shooting, or do most find that too saturated?
I think you're talking to me, since I did the edit, but my name isnt Peter lol. As far as PS goes I just find it natural but I've been using it since version 7 so it's quite natural for me. I don't know what to say it's really not that hard to use although I guess if you aren't the sort of person to just sit down with it and figure out what everything does it might be a bit overwhelming.
as far as slides go the exposure thing is a bit overblown; I mean other than the really picky ones the meters in 1970s cameras are accurate enough to shoot slides. That's what they were shooting, right? Well it was and even Velvia 50 can be shot on one of those meters if you know the foibles of them.
Velvia 50 is fine for general use but it's probably not what I would recommend first. I don't think it scans as well as Ektar though, and it can carry huge shadow detail that you're just not going to get out of the vast majority of scanners.
michael49 wrote:
I'll have to look at some Ektar examples. How about Velvia - anyone use that for general shooting, or do most find that too saturated?
i've always thought velvia is an awesome match for zeiss lenses, each seems to magnify the unique characteristics of the other. i really wouldn't use either of them to shoot people though for the most part.
sebboh wrote:
i've always thought velvia is an awesome match for zeiss lenses, each seems to magnify the unique characteristics of the other. i really wouldn't use either of them to shoot people though for the most part.
I think that's why I went with the Portra in the first place. Most of my shooting is done while hiking or on my drive to work. So its a mix of things, including too many photos of my wife and my dog , which is why I was trying to avoid an overly saturated film.
I've got another roll of Portra 160 3/4 done in the Rebel - I'll see how that comes out - just haven't decided whether to send to the same lab (would love to support a local place) or send to NCPS.
carstenw wrote:
Good stuff, Americo! A couple look like they weren't focused right, but judging by the one shot, you got the hang of it now. What kind of focusing screen do you have, a split view one?
Thank you carstenw! I believe it is the split screen. ill read the type asap tho
very nice look with those, especially that last one.
I really loved 160NC; back when I lived in Boston I shot a good deal which I never had developed / scanned. I lost all my negatives and a good 10 rolls of exposed but undeveloped portra 160NC in the same move that saw me lose a PC, my little Konica rangefinder, a rather nice little collection of golden age illustrated books and my good silverware. and while photography for me is fleeting, that was my first year of shooting and I wish I could have a few of those negatives back just to look at once.
KatieInTexas wrote:
Michael49 ... wonderful series. I especially like the first one of the branches over the water!
Americo (aRodriguezpix) I really like the last color roid you shot! Nice job! Those suckers aren't that easy to focus.
KatieInTexas , thank you very much! The picture was shot from my Rolleiflex 6008 medium format camera, hand held with the manual focus Zeiss formula Rollei made 80mm f/2.8 HFT PQS lens, to be exact, and just to say it! The film back was the Polaroid Magazin as it is called in Germany, so with this I was allowed to get at least one decent shot albeit in typical restroom selfy light xD I was so excited to use it for the first time and to shoot film for first time since 1986 as a boy! So with this said everything went to heck as I was unable to get the camera set up and running that I was on the brink of crashing! Thank God that board member carstenw was able to help me so much that its a shame for me to even mention it! Imagine buying such an awesome camera without any damn idea of its use!! Thanks again, and I hope to display something worth showing next!
carstenw wrote:
Which 500? If anything from C/M and on, you could buy an Acute Matte screen to focus with, much brighter than the old screens.
500C/M Classic from 1986. I wonder should I try acute matte, or split focus screen for it. but they are very expensive, $200+, are they?
Buy Now prices might be that high, but you should be able to find them for less with some patience. Note that there are two generations of them, the newer ones are more expensive, but both are very good.
carstenw wrote:
Buy Now prices might be that high, but you should be able to find them for less with some patience. Note that there are two generations of them, the newer ones are more expensive, but both are very good.
Any suggestion for acute matte or split focus screen. For DSLR, I'd choose acute matte but I am not used to chest level finder, and feel I might need split one for accurate focusing. What is your opinion about adding view finder, will it make focus easier?
Acute Matte is the finish, and is independent of split focus. There are Acute Matte split focus screens. Personally I prefer plain ground glass screens, with or without grid, but that is a personal preference. I find that it is often impossibly hard to find something good for the split thing to use, and then you have lost the middle of the ground glass.
When I focus with the waist level finder, I often fine-tune the focus with the loupe, or even shoot completely with the loupe. You might also want to try a 45 degree finder, if you don't object to the size and greater weight, but it will inherit the brightness of the screen, so you may have to do both, and you need to make sure that you have the right diopter, which can be hard to find and expensive. I would say start with a screen which is bright enough, and then judge if you need more.
zhangyue wrote:
What is your opinion about adding view finder, will it make focus easier?
A VF will make things around the edges darker, and you won't be able to magnify like you can with the WLF. I don't think it would necessarily make focusing much easier. It's also very heavy - after a roll holding the camera up to your eye, the weight will be noticeable.
Your picture of your kids is cute, but you should try out your Hasselblad outdoors with plenty of light and keep the shutter speed faster than 1/125 if you can.
- I've been pretty happy with LR.
