Kenny - I think Fromholz sang about Bosque County. Shame that he died the way he did. Very interesting architecture there, but it seems like you might be getting a crossover color thing happening where your skies seem a bit red while the pavement more cyan. What do you think? Is that from the processing or the scanning?
Gary Clennan wrote:
Does anyone know where to buy a LED lightbox for viewing (35mm) negatives?
Hi Gary. I used one for a while but if you own a scanner, the lightbox becomes obsolete. I just do a full screen preview (takes 25 s. with silverfast), which is much larger than any loupe will show you. If I decide not to keep the frame, I scan it at low resolution anyway just for the record. B&H has a good inventory if you decide to get the lightbox anyway: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Lightboxes-Light-Tables/ci/1558/N/4077634482
Peter Figen wrote:
Kenny - I think Fromholz sang about Bosque County. Shame that he died the way he did. Very interesting architecture there, but it seems like you might be getting a crossover color thing happening where your skies seem a bit red while the pavement more cyan. What do you think? Is that from the processing or the scanning?
Had to google Steve Fromholz, Peter. Guy was from 'nearby' Temple. I'm certain this is my processing. When I scan Portra 160, it never looks like I 'saw' it. This is PS' image adjustment-neutralize. Introduces too much red IMO and i'm just not up to snuff enuff to know how to get a good result afterwards. I'm even worse with slides, witness the image below with a longer 210mm lens and Provia. I just don't have a good feel for metering transparency film or fixing the damage after. I've got lots of time to learn, though, as I'll retire shortly.
saph wrote:
Fun thread! Georg, the Fujica GL690 (or G690 and other variants) would be an interesting tool indeed. Wonder how heavy it is.
Camerapedia has a couple of informative pages on both the interchangeable lens G690/GL690 series and the fixed lens GW690/GSW690 series. According to those pages, the G690 with a 100/3.5 lens weighed 2015g while the GL690 with a 100mm lens weighed 1745g. I had a GW690 in the early eighties (fixed 90/3.5 lens, 1430g) and, although it's a long time ago, I recall that despite its size it was a comfortable camera to carry and use.
The G690 page says that the "idea for the G690 came to Fuji from its discussions in Japan with commercial photographers, who were doing a brisk business in color photographs of tour groups that the tourists would buy as mementoes." I travelled frequently to Japan during the nineties and often saw tour groups being photographed with the Fuji 6x9 cameras. I also attended a number of weddings where the wedding party was photographed with both a 4x5 large format and a Fuji 6x9 camera.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Hi Gary. I used one for a while but if you own a scanner, the lightbox becomes obsolete. I just do a full screen preview (takes 25 s. with silverfast), which is much larger than any loupe will show you. If I decide not to keep the frame, I scan it at low resolution anyway just for the record. B&H has a good inventory if you decide to get the lightbox anyway: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Lightboxes-Light-Tables/ci/1558/N/4077634482
Thanks Edward! I have a box of old negatives that would take me a very long time to scan - even at low res. I am just planning to have a very quick look at them to see what vintage they are and generally what the content is. Most of them will not even be scanned digitally.... I will try out the quick scan option first and see how I make out. No reason to buy another device if I don't really need to.
Gary Clennan wrote:
Thanks Edward! I have a box of old negatives that would take me a very long time to scan - even at low res. I am just planning to have a very quick look at them to see what vintage they are and generally what the content is. Most of them will not even be scanned digitally.... I will try out the quick scan option first and see how I make out. No reason to buy another device if I don't really need to.
By the way, you can use an iPad or laptop screen as a lightbox. I do it sometimes and it works quite well
Kenny,
I always enjoy the courthouse shots, having driven by many of them. Bosque County is a special favorite as we travel through Meridian to visit extended family several times per year. I definitely think the colors in the Provia shot are a bit more true to the courthouse than the Portra. There are some pretty useful tutorials on ebay for adjusting the colors of negative scans that are worth watching, and the ColorPerfect plugin is another good option.
saph wrote:
Fun thread! Georg, the Fujica GL690 (or G690 and other variants) would be an interesting tool indeed. Wonder how heavy it is.
Hi Samy, the Fujica GL690 is heavy for sure, just for fun I put some of my cameras on a simple kitchen-scale.
Here are the results:
Fujica GL 690 with Fujinon 100/3.5 (not the AE-variant) - about 1.9 kg
Fujica GW 680 III - about 1.5 kg
Rolleiflex SL66 with Planar 80/2.8 - just over 2kg
Nikon D3s with 55/1.2 Ai and L-bracket - just over 2 kg
Nikon FM2 with MD12 and 55/1.2 Ai - a bit over 1.5 kg
Rolleicord III in it's beautifully made leather-pouch (?) - a bit over 1 kg
...and my Agfa Clack (6x9) is even equipped with a Yellow-filter shy of 350 grams
Okay, this was just for fun. I have wide Optech-straps on heavy cameras and don't think any one of my cameras is too heavy.
The Fujica GL690 is a well made camera, the nickname "Texas-Leica" a good match.
huddy wrote:
Kenny,
I always enjoy the courthouse shots, having driven by many of them. Bosque County is a special favorite as we travel through Meridian to visit extended family several times per year. I definitely think the colors in the Provia shot are a bit more true to the courthouse than the Portra. There are some pretty useful tutorials on ebay for adjusting the colors of negative scans that are worth watching, and the ColorPerfect plugin is another good option.
-Alan
Thank you, Alan, and I agree that the Provia is better. This courthouse is one of my favorites.
I use Vuescan and 'take the defaults' when scanning, by and large. Interesting that Vuescan's defaults for transparencies are different/better than for color negatives. Still, my PS skills are lacking.
That cave shot was done last year in digital. It took a 3 shot bracket and still doesn't look as natural as a single negative frame from cheap consumer film. Why I love c-41, handles highlights superbly.
That cave shot was done last year in digital. It took a 3 shot bracket and still doesn't look as natural as a single negative frame from cheap consumer film. Why I love c-41, handles highlights superbly.
Jon,
C-41 films are my favorite. I'm going to be getting some CineStill 50D, ISO 50, 120 roll, re-spooled motion picture stuff.
From the same outfit I got some 800T in 120. Supposed to have great dyn range & fine grain.
BTW, I am going to be in Huntingdon, TN form Oct 3 through 5th. Then we will be heading up into Kentucky for a day.
Presently planning to go along the Red River Gorge as we traverse up to WVA.
Went outside last weekend to take photos with my 4x5 camera, Schneider-Kreuznach 210/5.6 lens with 2-stop ND filter, and TMax 100 film. Developed in Rodinal 1:50.
georgms wrote:
^ a very nice series, hard to pick a favorite.
Thanks for you kind comment - I was pleasantly surprised how well the 4x5 film shots turned out here. It was the first time that I tried shooting waterfalls with this film.
retrofocus wrote:
Thanks for you kind comment - I was pleasantly surprised how well the 4x5 film shots turned out here. It was the first time that I tried shooting waterfalls with this film.
At least we're lucky enough to still get TMax 100 in LF. I'm holding on to my last 5 pack in 120 for a while.
