Post your recent film shots!
p.895 #1Post your recent film shots!
Apologies in advance for the longer post.
Roll 058: RZ67 Pro II and 160 NS
Roll 059 was posted a few posts above.
Roll 060: GW690II and PanF
SergeyT wrote:
Good luck. I'm certain it can be figured out.
It turns out that I was making at least three mistakes. 1. Metering. I was trusting my incidence meter too much when I should have been verifying the scene with a spot meter. 2. I made no adjustments to the exposure (correcting for over/under exposure) in Silverfast as I didn't think it could be better than Capture One. I was wrong. 3. I was leaving a color option in Silverfast in auto when it should have been unchecked. This introduced an extra color shift after dust and scratch removal. With all these errors, it is easy to see how they can accumulate and mess things up. But now that I have identified them, I have gotten my first wow-roll from Ektar. There is still room for improvement in my skills of course, but at least I have a workflow that is more consistent.
Roll 061: GW690II and Ektar
Roll 062: GW690II and 160NS
Roll 058: RZ67 Pro II and 160 NS
Roll 059 was posted a few posts above.
Roll 060: GW690II and PanF
SergeyT wrote:
Good luck. I'm certain it can be figured out.
It turns out that I was making at least three mistakes. 1. Metering. I was trusting my incidence meter too much when I should have been verifying the scene with a spot meter. 2. I made no adjustments to the exposure (correcting for over/under exposure) in Silverfast as I didn't think it could be better than Capture One. I was wrong. 3. I was leaving a color option in Silverfast in auto when it should have been unchecked. This introduced an extra color shift after dust and scratch removal. With all these errors, it is easy to see how they can accumulate and mess things up. But now that I have identified them, I have gotten my first wow-roll from Ektar. There is still room for improvement in my skills of course, but at least I have a workflow that is more consistent.
Roll 061: GW690II and Ektar
Roll 062: GW690II and 160NS
Dec 23, 2021 at 04:08 PM
p.895 #2Post your recent film shots!
theHUN wrote:
...But now that I have identified them, I have gotten my first wow-roll from Ektar. There is still room for improvement in my skills of course, but at least I have a workflow that is more consistent.
I am happy to see you made Ektar work for you! It renders beautiful Blues that are usually the hardest task for other color negative film emulsions.
Severe underexposure is bad for color negatives, unless used on purpose for some special effects.
Overexposure of less than a stop is fine. Above that is ok too , but in my experience for best results it should be dealt with in post in fully "manual" mode . Too dense highlights throw off many conversion algorithms.
...But now that I have identified them, I have gotten my first wow-roll from Ektar. There is still room for improvement in my skills of course, but at least I have a workflow that is more consistent.
I am happy to see you made Ektar work for you! It renders beautiful Blues that are usually the hardest task for other color negative film emulsions.
Severe underexposure is bad for color negatives, unless used on purpose for some special effects.
Overexposure of less than a stop is fine. Above that is ok too , but in my experience for best results it should be dealt with in post in fully "manual" mode . Too dense highlights throw off many conversion algorithms.
Dec 23, 2021 at 05:05 PM
p.895 #3Post your recent film shots!
Desmolicious wrote:
On an M3 40mm is pretty much the entire VF area, so it is easy to use.Intriguing! there's a M3 DS with a Rigid Summicron for sale at a reasonable price nearby............ Must be strong. 
Pentax 67 + 135/4 Macro + Fuji Provia 100FThat pic is a WOW!
How did you get that DOF with the macro lens?
Thanks! To answer your question, if I recall correctly I was shooting at f/22
helimat wrote
Desmolicious wrote
Thanks! The Rollei is a delight to use because it is so small, and Leicas are so much nicer to use with small lenses.On an M3 40mm is pretty much the entire VF area, so it is easy to use.
Pentax 67 + 135/4 Macro + Fuji Provia 100F
How did you get that DOF with the macro lens?
Thanks! To answer your question, if I recall correctly I was shooting at f/22
Dec 23, 2021 at 07:54 PM
p.895 #4Post your recent film shots!
helimat wrote:
Thanks! To answer your question, if I recall correctly I was shooting at f/22
A wonderful image which demonstrates that people should not be afraid of diffraction-limited apertures!
Thanks! To answer your question, if I recall correctly I was shooting at f/22
A wonderful image which demonstrates that people should not be afraid of diffraction-limited apertures!
Dec 23, 2021 at 09:20 PM
p.895 #5Post your recent film shots!
theHUN wrote:
A wonderful image which demonstrates that people should not be afraid of diffraction-limited apertures!
According to the calculator here:
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
f/22 on a 6x7 is not diffraction limited.
But I totally agree that getting the desired depth of field (or shutter speed) trumps worrying about diffraction any day
Heron
Dec 24, 2021 at 12:11 AM
p.895 #6Post your recent film shots!
OregonSun wrote:
According to the calculator here:
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
f/22 on a 6x7 is not diffraction limited.
But I totally agree that getting the desired depth of field (or shutter speed) trumps worrying about diffraction any day
Heron
Learn something new every day. Thanks!
theHUN wrote
A wonderful image which demonstrates that people should not be afraid of diffraction-limited apertures!https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
f/22 on a 6x7 is not diffraction limited.
But I totally agree that getting the desired depth of field (or shutter speed) trumps worrying about diffraction any day
Heron
Learn something new every day. Thanks!
Dec 24, 2021 at 09:32 AM
p.895 #7Post your recent film shots!
theHUN wrote:
A wonderful image which demonstrates that people should not be afraid of diffraction-limited apertures!
Thanks! I feel people make way too much of diffraction anyways... That being said, I would very rarely go to f/22 on 35mm. The larger the format, the smaller the apertures will have to go to get proper DOF of course.
---------------------------------------------
OregonSun wrote:
According to the calculator here:
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
f/22 on a 6x7 is not diffraction limited.
I have a hot take on that one too..... In the calculations they never seem to factor in focal length, but would the aperture being further from the film plane/sensor not make the angle of the light less oblique?
But I totally agree that getting the desired depth of field (or shutter speed) trumps worrying about diffraction any day
100%!
A wonderful image which demonstrates that people should not be afraid of diffraction-limited apertures!
Thanks! I feel people make way too much of diffraction anyways... That being said, I would very rarely go to f/22 on 35mm. The larger the format, the smaller the apertures will have to go to get proper DOF of course.
---------------------------------------------
OregonSun wrote:
According to the calculator here:
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
f/22 on a 6x7 is not diffraction limited.
I have a hot take on that one too..... In the calculations they never seem to factor in focal length, but would the aperture being further from the film plane/sensor not make the angle of the light less oblique?
But I totally agree that getting the desired depth of field (or shutter speed) trumps worrying about diffraction any day
100%!
Dec 24, 2021 at 09:33 AM
p.895 #8Post your recent film shots!
helimat wrote:
I have a hot take on that one too..... In the calculations they never seem to factor in focal length, but would the aperture being further from the film plane/sensor not make the angle of the light less oblique?
There is a note on that at the very bottom of the page:
"Technical Note: Independence of Focal Length Since the physical size of an aperture is larger for telephoto lenses (f/4 has a 50 mm diameter at 200 mm, but only a 25 mm diameter at 100 mm), why doesn't the airy disk become smaller? This is because longer focal lengths also cause light to travel farther before hitting the camera sensor -- thus increasing the distance over which the airy disk can continue to diverge. The competing effects of larger aperture and longer focal length therefore cancel, leaving only the f-number as being important (which describes focal length relative to aperture size)."
I have a hot take on that one too..... In the calculations they never seem to factor in focal length, but would the aperture being further from the film plane/sensor not make the angle of the light less oblique?
There is a note on that at the very bottom of the page:
"Technical Note: Independence of Focal Length Since the physical size of an aperture is larger for telephoto lenses (f/4 has a 50 mm diameter at 200 mm, but only a 25 mm diameter at 100 mm), why doesn't the airy disk become smaller? This is because longer focal lengths also cause light to travel farther before hitting the camera sensor -- thus increasing the distance over which the airy disk can continue to diverge. The competing effects of larger aperture and longer focal length therefore cancel, leaving only the f-number as being important (which describes focal length relative to aperture size)."
Dec 24, 2021 at 11:02 AM
p.895 #9Post your recent film shots!
theHUN wrote:
There is a note on that at the very bottom of the page:
"Technical Note: Independence of Focal Length Since the physical size of an aperture is larger for telephoto lenses (f/4 has a 50 mm diameter at 200 mm, but only a 25 mm diameter at 100 mm), why doesn't the airy disk become smaller? This is because longer focal lengths also cause light to travel farther before hitting the camera sensor -- thus increasing the distance over which the airy disk can continue to diverge. The competing effects of larger aperture and longer focal length therefore cancel, leaving only...Show more →
That makes sense. Thanks!
helimat wrote
I have a hot take on that one too..... In the calculations they never seem to factor in focal length, but would the aperture being further from the film plane/sensor not make the angle of the light less oblique?"Technical Note: Independence of Focal Length Since the physical size of an aperture is larger for telephoto lenses (f/4 has a 50 mm diameter at 200 mm, but only a 25 mm diameter at 100 mm), why doesn't the airy disk become smaller? This is because longer focal lengths also cause light to travel farther before hitting the camera sensor -- thus increasing the distance over which the airy disk can continue to diverge. The competing effects of larger aperture and longer focal length therefore cancel, leaving only...Show more →
That makes sense. Thanks!
Dec 24, 2021 at 11:14 AM
p.895 #10Post your recent film shots!
OregonSun wrote:
..
But I totally agree that getting the desired depth of field (or shutter speed) trumps worrying about diffraction any day
Heron
It's funny, I have never even thought about diffraction when I am out shooting!
..
But I totally agree that getting the desired depth of field (or shutter speed) trumps worrying about diffraction any day
Heron
It's funny, I have never even thought about diffraction when I am out shooting!
Dec 24, 2021 at 11:25 AM
|
p.895 #11Post your recent film shots!
Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa).
Nikon FM2n, AI Nikkor 50mm f/1.8S, Kentmere Pan 400, developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:31 for 5.5 minutes.
2021.08.11 Roll #286-06422-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr
Nikon FM2n, AI Nikkor 50mm f/1.8S, Kentmere Pan 400, developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:31 for 5.5 minutes.
2021.08.11 Roll #286-06422-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr
Dec 24, 2021 at 06:24 PM
p.895 #12Post your recent film shots!
Desmolicious wrote:
But I totally agree that getting the desired depth of field (or shutter speed) trumps worrying about diffraction any day
HeronIt's funny, I have never even thought about diffraction when I am out shooting!
I have only thought about it when doing macro shots as that's where I would want to maximize DOF without sacrificing resolution of the in focus area too much. But typically the only issue I see at these apertures is dust on the (digital) sensor.
OregonSun wrote
..But I totally agree that getting the desired depth of field (or shutter speed) trumps worrying about diffraction any day
Heron
I have only thought about it when doing macro shots as that's where I would want to maximize DOF without sacrificing resolution of the in focus area too much. But typically the only issue I see at these apertures is dust on the (digital) sensor.
Dec 24, 2021 at 06:53 PM
p.895 #13Post your recent film shots!
No diffraction here! Pentax 67 + 105/2.4 (wide open) + Fuji Pro 400H
Dec 24, 2021 at 06:59 PM
p.895 #14Post your recent film shots!
Nikonos V, 35mm, Kodak TMY 3200 @ 1600, Cinestill DF96.
This is where DF96 is not good. At pushing TMY3200 film. This film is actually rated at ISO 800, and you can push it to 3200 w the appropriate developer. Which is not DF96 Monobath! Becomes super grainy and blocks up the shadows. With a helping of too much contrast.
Works great at ISO 800. Or pushing regular films like Arista 100/200 one stop. But not Kodak or Ilford Delta 3200.
This is where DF96 is not good. At pushing TMY3200 film. This film is actually rated at ISO 800, and you can push it to 3200 w the appropriate developer. Which is not DF96 Monobath! Becomes super grainy and blocks up the shadows. With a helping of too much contrast.
Works great at ISO 800. Or pushing regular films like Arista 100/200 one stop. But not Kodak or Ilford Delta 3200.
Dec 25, 2021 at 02:19 PM
p.895 #18Post your recent film shots!
Genba Kantoku W28 + Kodak Gold 400 (expired)
Dec 26, 2021 at 10:29 AM
p.895 #19Post your recent film shots!
Pentax 67 + 75/2.8 AL + Kodak Tri-X 400
Dec 26, 2021 at 10:35 AM
p.895 #20Post your recent film shots!
Nikon FM2n, AI Nikkor 50mm f/1.8S, Kentmere Pan 400, developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:31 for 5.5 minutes.
2021.08.12 Roll #287-06538-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr
2021.08.12 Roll #287-06538-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr
Dec 26, 2021 at 07:00 PM