rattymouse wrote:
Excellent feedback on the Plustek 120. Did you buy from B & H? Any photos of the actual scanner? Is it as slow a scanner as I've read?
Sorry for the questions!
Not slow at all with Vuescan but I've read it is with Silverfast. I bought it here in Europe from Amazon, it costs like 2000 dollars. Cheaper than a digital back for my RZ67
By the way, when I say sharpness is not to different to a V750 with betterscanning antinewton glass I'm talking about 120, for 35 film the plustek sharpness is miles better than the V750.
toshiro wrote:
Not slow at all with Vuescan but I've read it is with Silverfast. I bought it here in Europe from Amazon, it costs like 2000 dollars. Cheaper than a digital back for my RZ67
By the way, when I say sharpness is not to different to a V750 with betterscanning antinewton glass I'm talking about 120, for 35 film the plustek sharpness is miles better than the V750.
Awesome! Let's see some 35mm shots when you have the time.
Some travels through "The Last Green Valley", in Connecticut. This is the Gurlyville Grist & Sawmill, in operation from 1723 until 1941, now preserved as a museum site, under the "Joshua's Trust" organization.
Camera used was a Zeiss Icarette 6x12, 120mm Tessar, K2 filter, Pan-F+ souped in HC-110 Dil. E.
Ok, I'm going to appear stupid, but I have to ask, is there a bias against color film images?
Seems to be some type of strong bias against anything other than B&W.
Not necessarily on this forum, but man, on many other forums, there IS a certain amount of snobbery.
Don't get me wrong, I like B&W images too, but, if you post color images in certain other places, you are not a proper film shooter, whatever that means...
Sorry, had to get this out of the way, it's bothering me.
I guess I will stop posting to certain other sites.
Okay, I'm done, for today...
buggz2k wrote:
Ok, I'm going to appear stupid, but I have to ask, is there a bias against color film images?
Seems to be some type of strong bias against anything other than B&W.
Not necessarily on this forum, but man, on many other forums, there IS a certain amount of snobbery.
Don't get me wrong, I like B&W images too, but, if you post color images in certain other places, you are not a proper film shooter, whatever that means...
Sorry, had to get this out of the way, it's bothering me.
I guess I will stop posting to certain other sites.
Okay, I'm done, for today...
Good question! Yes, there is a bias against color film, for several reasons.
1st, it is much more complex and difficult to develop color film at home. One of THE greatest bits of fun about film photography is doing your own developing. It is an absolute BLAST. I just love it. I have not tried color yet but perhaps one day. Color developing requires more steps and the temperature requirements are much more strict.
Another reason is that digital cameras do quite well with color imaging. For black and white, there is still a very strong difference between the two.
Printing color images at home from film is also more complex.
Those are some of the reasons why you will see much more black and white images in film threads.
buggz2k wrote:
Ok, I'm going to appear stupid, but I have to ask, is there a bias against color film images?
Seems to be some type of strong bias against anything other than B&W.
Not necessarily on this forum, but man, on many other forums, there IS a certain amount of snobbery.
Don't get me wrong, I like B&W images too, but, if you post color images in certain other places, you are not a proper film shooter, whatever that means...
Sorry, had to get this out of the way, it's bothering me.
I guess I will stop posting to certain other sites.
Okay, I'm done, for today...
No bias against colour film shooting here.
B&W however is cheaper and easier to do at home (so as to not require a lab, or a more demanding home process as colour does), and there's still IMHO a much bigger difference in look between B&W film and digital than between colour film & digital.
Personally I gave up shooting colour film a while back because the results didn't outweigh the effort for me when I stopped shooting medium format (even more so now that the last local E-6 lab shut down). B&W still shows a net benefit to me because it's both easier and has an even more distinctive look.
That said, for the purist, colour work on film was only very briefly accepted as an artistic medium, while B&W is still what many consider 'art film work'. So there are a goodly number of shooters out there who never have fully accepted colour work in the first place, especially larger format shooters and RF shooters, who are a much larger portion of the film shooting world today than was the case 10-20 years ago. There's also something of a backlash against the Lomography and Toy Camera fads, which emphasize lo-fi colour work.
buggz2k wrote:
...Seems to be some type of strong bias against anything other than B&W.
Not necessarily on this forum, but man, on many other forums, there IS a certain amount of snobbery...
I used to shoot mostly 4x5 chromes (E4 then E6), and 35mm and 120 format color negative, and Kodachrome (K-14), and some B&W across the formats. Enter digital, then watch the exit of local labs, and my cross-over began. I never did color at home because of my frequent deployments (and short shelf-life of chemicals), and having a well for drinking water and septic system instead of municipal sewers. Digital is my "color process", and black & white film that I develop in my home darkroom and print/scan is my expression of what I see, and my "Ex-Lax for the mind...mine!". I enjoy the images posted here and throughout the other threads on FM, and the choice of color vs. B&W, to me, is what that person "feels" is the best way to present their vision. Just my 2 cents as an owner/operator...
Never developed B&W here (except for c-41 BW) however do develop c-41 color at home. It really is simple. With a tetenal kit, all you have is developer for 3.3m at 102, blix for 6.3m, rinse for 3.3m, stabilizer for 1.5m. Simple. Just get a good water bath and when the temp hits 102, time to develop. Have an xtol kit but I am too busy shooting and developing c41. And like rattymouse, I enjoy the process of developing.
Jon Buffington wrote:
Never developed B&W here (except for c-41 BW) however do develop c-41 color at home. It really is simple. With a tetenal kit, all you have is developer for 3.3m at 102, blix for 6.3m, rinse for 3.3m, stabilizer for 1.5m. Simple. Just get a good water bath and when the temp hits 102, time to develop. Have an xtol kit but I am too busy shooting and developing c41. And like rattymouse, I enjoy the process of developing.
You gotta be one rare bird Jon.. I've never heard of anyone who did color first and color ONLY!
buggz2k wrote:
Ok, I'm going to appear stupid, but I have to ask, is there a bias against color film images?
Seems to be some type of strong bias against anything other than B&W.
Not necessarily on this forum, but man, on many other forums, there IS a certain amount of snobbery.
Don't get me wrong, I like B&W images too, but, if you post color images in certain other places, you are not a proper film shooter, whatever that means...
Sorry, had to get this out of the way, it's bothering me.
I guess I will stop posting to certain other sites.
Okay, I'm done, for today...
I love color film images, both positive and negative.
i use 120 provia and velvia for travel; Gold 200 or Portra on the Xpan where colors brings me back to those moments
For events though I like B&W as it helps you concentrate on the moment itself without distracting you with colors, also this summer I want to take some 4x5 B&W mountainscapes but I will also have some 4x5 Ektar for those sunrise/sunset moments or basically where I deign color would complement the image.
I developed a roll of Gold 200 24exp yesterday as I wasn't sure I screwed up my newly prepared C-41 kit (Developed 3 rolls of expired Portra 800 and strip still looked very dense, probably not enough time in the Blix or I made the mistake of rinsing the rolls with water between developer and blix)
Yashica 35 CCN w/ Gold 200 AB016A by earl.dieta, on Flickr AB001A by earl.dieta, on Flickr
Thanks to all for the explanations.
I am trying to digest this.
I understood the development of B&W vs color.
What I did NOT take into account was the whole scale "abandonment" of traditional color film shooters to digital use, and that digital color, and film color are very similar?
I also did NOT know that digital B&W and analog B&W look very different?
I should cheer up and be put down by a few individuals.
Thanks!
buggz2k wrote:
Thanks to all for the explanations.
I am trying to digest this.
I understood the development of B&W vs color.
What I did NOT take into account was the whole scale "abandonment" of traditional color film shooters to digital use, and that digital color, and film color are very similar?
I also did NOT know that digital B&W and analog B&W look very different?
I should cheer up and be put down by a few individuals.
Thanks!
I think you're misunderstanding the point.
Nobody is saying cheer up and accept some individuals put-downs. You aren't doing anything wrong by shooting colour film and anyone who puts you down for it is clearly in the wrong
There's definitely a look to colour film, but the trend in colour film has generally been to fine grain and punchy colour with a fairly linear response, very similar to the classic digital look. Colour is also a more difficult process than B&W to do yourself.
B&W, particularly the traditional grain films, tends to a more non-linear response and often one with very visible grain, which is a look difficult to achieve in digital, and additionally B&W is relatively easy to do yourself.
This has led to the film world being more of a B&W shooting world today than it was in decades previously. And frankly it does play into traditional biases towards B&W, especially in the RF and LF shooting worlds (which did tend to collect alot of the anti-colour film folks in the first place)
rattymouse wrote:
You gotta be one rare bird Jon.. I've never heard of anyone who did color first and color ONLY!
Well I do have some rolls of HP5 waiting to be exposed.
Here is some home souped c-41 from a recent roll on a canon A1 with either the 50/1.8ssc or a wolfpro branded (vivitar?) 135/2.8. Fuji200>tetenal>Kodak pakon135+>lr5 (slight levels and sharpening).
"don't"
lots more to go through and numerous rolls to develop.
And as a side note, shot the same sunflower shot with my 5dmkII. Waaaay to much work to tame the highlights and the blocked up shadows having to take numerous exposures. Color negatives just works better in tricky light (for me) and gives a much more pleasant color palette. I still am shooting digital for my paid work and for my serious landscape work but am hardly even picking up a digital camera otherwise.
