rattymouse wrote:
You are very welcome. Yep, always with SilverFast. Sometimes the colors come out a bit wonky. I have not calibrated the scanner so perhaps that would help. Usually I just adjust the white balance to bring them back into line. This scanner really shines when it comes to 35mm film. I never liked flatbed scanning for the smaller film and the Plustek really takes it up a notch or two.
Great photos and scans! I’m pleasantly surprised about the colors and Dmax (which is the scanner ability to see in the dark areas of film). I have a Nikon Coolscan V which is a superb scanner, but there is only one place in the world that services it, and it’s in Miami. It would cost me the price of the scanner for each service. It’s nice to know I have another good option just in case. Thank you RM.
rattymouse wrote:
Wow....I wish I had that much Reala 100. Never shot that film in 35mm format. I have 5 rolls in 120 in the freezer. What did all that cost you?
i got the 20 rolls for $115 shipped - just under $6 a roll, which I think is a REALLY good deal. I am thinking about picking up some 120 format as well, so when i make the jump to MF, i will have some. And for some reason, it seems easier to find in medium format than in 135.
Dustin Gent wrote:
i got the 20 rolls for $115 shipped - just under $6 a roll, which I think is a REALLY good deal. I am thinking about picking up some 120 format as well, so when i make the jump to MF, i will have some. And for some reason, it seems easier to find in medium format than in 135.
That is a great price. I'd buy that in a heartbeat.
Reala was discontinued in 35mm format long ago and only recently in 120 format. That's why you find more 120 lying around.
Great Scans Rattymouse - I had the Plustek 120 a few years ago but had some real problems with banding when scanning 120 C41 film. The issue was not present when scanning 35mm or Slide Film. Ended up trying another couple and they all had the same problem.
First image is with a Rolleiflex 2.8F / all others with Hasselblad 203FE and 60mm/3.5 lens - Portra 400 self developed (last one b&w conversion) - Scanned with my Nikon Coolscan 9000
Two 4x5 photos which I took yesterday with my Swiss Alpina large format camera and Schneider-Kreuznach 210/5.6 Copal lens using Arista 100 film, developed in Xtol (1:2).
Do you guys know if keeping the 120 film wrapper in place affects long term (freezer) storage? I recently used some Provia 100F which was expired and out of the wrapper but apparently always freezer stored. The results were not very good. Most of the film was really light and resulting images were way overexposed. If the film is out of the wrapper, is it best just to scrap it? Just wanted some input before I try a few more rolls (E6 as well) that I have. Thanks.
Gary Clennan wrote:
Do you guys know if keeping the 120 film wrapper in place affects long term (freezer) storage? I recently used some Provia 100F which was expired and out of the wrapper but apparently always freezer stored. The results were not very good. Most of the film was really light and resulting images were way overexposed. If the film is out of the wrapper, is it best just to scrap it? Just wanted some input before I try a few more rolls (E6 as well) that I have. Thanks.
Gary, there’s a reason why the wrapper is totally sealed. Condensation and humidity are the enemies of film. I would think 120 film with its paper backing is very sensitive to humidity. I personally always freeze my film in zip locked plastic bags for extra security. I would certainly not discard the remaining film, but probably wouldn’t shoot anything too important with it. Please keep in mind that it could be a lab mistake too. Normally affected film should come out darker and grainier.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Gary, there’s a reason why the wrapper is totally sealed. Condensation and humidity are the enemies of film. I would think 120 film with its paper backing is very sensitive to humidity. I personally always freeze my film in zip locked plastic bags for extra security. I would certainly not discard the remaining film, but probably wouldn’t shoot anything too important with it. Please keep in mind that it could be a lab mistake too. Normally affected film should come out darker and grainier.
Or - god forbid, I made a metering mistake?!? The lab is super trustworthy but could be a factor. It was a very white scene though. A lot of snow all around and a white fog in the air. Probably a bit of a challenge for slide film. Thanks for the info! My Portra160 shots of the same turned out good though....
Gary Clennan wrote:
Or - god forbid, I made a metering mistake?!? The lab is super trustworthy but could be a factor. It was a very white scene though. A lot of snow all around and a white fog in the air. Probably a bit of a challenge for slide film. Thanks for the info! My Portra160 shots of the same turned out good though....
Gary Clennan wrote:
Film numbering/lettering looks perfect. Does this work for all film types? Thanks for the link!
So it’s your metering, Gary
Yes but for reversal film, developer issues would be reversed. Under development will cause the film to be too thin for negatives and too thick for slides.
Yes but for reversal film, developer issues would be reversed. Under development will cause the film to be too thin for negatives and too thick for slides.
Haha - appreciate the info Edward. I will have to look at some other negs to compare. I always thought (could be wrong) that the film lettering I have seen was always good regardless of severe overexposure or underexposure. I remember metering carefully off of a grey-ish colored window to try and get an accurate reading. I didn't want the bright snow and sky to mess with things. I should have bracketed another exposure I guess. Oh well, the joys of film!
The lab is super trustworthy but could be a factor. It was a very white scene though. A lot of snow all around and a white fog in the air. Probably a bit of a challenge for slide film. Thanks for the info! My Portra160 shots of the same turned out good though....
