Making the best out of the social distancing situation, I found a deserted park/forest area nearby me with a few nice photo spots. Last week I took my Hasselblad 500 C/M and 50/4 CF T* lens loaded with Fuji Velvia 50 film. Home-developed with E-6 and scanned with Epson V850.
d.s. wrote:
I can't say why, but fyi, your images only appear when switching from the mobile to standard version. Could it be the use of "frame" vs. "img" tags?
Thanks for pointing this out. I thought the problem was at my end (iPad or Safari) but as soon as I switched from mobile to standard Martin’s images appeared.
1990 or 91, The Blue Angels over Lake Washington with Mt. Rainier in the background. This was Ektachrome shot with the Contax RTSIII and 100-300 lens, a wonderful combination back then. Nikon Coolscan 5000 scanned at 2000dpi.
d.s. wrote:
I can't say why, but fyi, your images only appear when switching from the mobile to standard version. Could it be the use of "frame" vs. "img" tags?
It's the first time I hear this, I always upload my photos using the frame indexing. Not familiar with the "img" here. I know that Zenfolio as my web site provider is sometimes slow to show linked images for some reason. It is one major complaint I have with Zenfolio that this tends to be on the slower side.
I just checked on my own cell - I have the same issue. The photos are only displayed on my desktop but not on my mobile phone. I tried a different image size to link to, but it caused the same issue. Currently clueless how to fix this!
retrofocus wrote:
It's the first time I hear this, I always upload my photos using the frame indexing. Not familiar with the "img" here. I know that Zenfolio as my web site provider is sometimes slow to show linked images for some reason. It is one major complaint I have with Zenfolio that this tends to be on the slower side.
I just checked on my own cell - I have the same issue. The photos are only displayed on my desktop but not on my mobile phone. I tried a different image size to link to, but it caused the same issue. Currently clueless how to fix this!...Show more →
Just checking...
You'll want to delete the code around your image url (the "c" and "frame" portions). Then add "img" and "/img" in brackets in their place.
1joel1 wrote:
1990 or 91, The Blue Angels over Lake Washington with Mt. Rainier in the background. This was Ektachrome shot with the Contax RTSIII and 100-300 lens, a wonderful combination back then. Nikon Coolscan 5000 scanned at 2000dpi.
From the slide, I could get 16x24 no problem. As to the 2000dpi scan, I really don't know. I haven't tried printing any scans, but it should be able to do the same. I can scan at 4000dpi for a much bigger file and reduce grain. I've been playing around with it and have been able to reduce the blue a bit more and that's more pleasing to my eye. I think that if the image is well focused and a lower ISO film, you can get a pretty large print, well over 40".
Joel
AHPZuazua wrote:
What size print will that get you for wall art?
You'll want to delete the code around your image url (the "c" and "frame" portions). Then add "img" and "/img" in brackets in their place.
Thanks, but that's a new one for me - Fred's image insertion always uses the "frame" tag, is this outdated now? Was this communicated somewhere? I have never seen the "img" insertion before that this was recommended instead of "frame"?
retrofocus wrote:
Thanks, but that's a new one for me - Fred's image insertion always uses the "frame" tag, is this outdated now? Was this communicated somewhere? I have never seen the "img" insertion before that this was recommended instead of "frame"?
I've no idea. Perhaps someone can speak to that/those.
d.s. wrote:
What developer did you use, or is there a particular one JCH recommends?
On the product page JCH suggests a number of different developers including two used by the labs that developed my film: D76 and T-Max. For me the problem is less the development than the film itself—a discontinued surveillance emulsion used in traffic infringement cameras that Bellamy Hunt has “resurrected”. I didn’t say it’s a terrible film, it’s just that I’m clearly not the target audience. I’ve settled on T-Max 400 (TMY) in both 35mm and 120, which should give you an idea of what I prefer.
genji wrote:
On the product page JCH suggests a number of different developers including two used by the labs that developed my film: D76 and T-Max. For me the problem is less the development than the film itself—a discontinued surveillance emulsion used in traffic infringement cameras that Bellamy Hunt has “resurrected”. I didn’t say it’s a terrible film, it’s just that I’m clearly not the target audience. I’ve settled on T-Max 400 (TMY) in both 35mm and 120, which should give you an idea of what I prefer.
I'd thought recommending something like Diafine might improve shadow detail, if it's still around, but see that's not the point of this film. I'd stick with TMY2, too.
genji wrote:
On the product page JCH suggests a number of different developers including two used by the labs that developed my film: D76 and T-Max. For me the problem is less the development than the film itself—a discontinued surveillance emulsion used in traffic infringement cameras that Bellamy Hunt has “resurrected”. I didn’t say it’s a terrible film, it’s just that I’m clearly not the target audience. I’ve settled on T-Max 400 (TMY) in both 35mm and 120, which should give you an idea of what I prefer.
