I recently had some feedback from a friend on this image regarding the aspens having a muddy tone. Largely this was an atmospheric issue as this stand was a bit more orange than yellow combined with its shady location, it just was a bit muddy. So I've tried to make some local hue adjustments to the aspens. Do you think this improves the image?
Some really nice shots there Nate.
I reckon film for a wedding is a reasonable proposition if you dont intend to scan it all your self. Particularly for B&W images - cant beat the tones and grain
Empire wrote:
Some really nice shots there Nate.
I reckon film for a wedding is a reasonable proposition if you dont intend to scan it all your self. Particularly for B&W images - cant beat the tones and grain
I need to figure out how to use my flash on any of my rangefinders if I do it again. Shooting a wedding with such fast film is frustrating and doesn't give the results I'd like.
Nice one Nate, 2 & 3 are favs
Sean Reid has an article on rangefinders+flash on a cable, its a good read. He uses this combo for weddings, he lets the flash hang from his left wrist and grabs it only when he needs the fill. Judging from the photos it works well.
I'd still do at least one roll of pushed film of some sort, it looks awesome.
They look great! I like the aspect ratio too, possibly the thing I like least about the 135 format. The boke on that last shot is getting a little Gauss though, don't you think?
Thanks Carsten! As for gaussian bokeh - I don't think so. Look near the branches of the bush by the tree and you can see some pretty uneven stuff
Ok, two more:
It was too dark to accurately focus the last one, so I missed. Still, I sort of liked the result.
Shooting film is a pretty expensive hobby - at least here in Stockholm where there aren't that many labs and they really charge quite a bit for development and (low res) scanning. High resolution scanning costs absurdly much (€30/shot for a 50 Megapixel scan). So to get ten shots from a 120 film, it's Film = €6, Development = €6, Scanning = €13 (a 2.5 megapixel scan) => €25 / 10 shots. So after 100 shots I will have payed more for film processing than for the camera and lens
Very nice shots, denoir! But I don't like the fake bokeh. There's no chance on earth that a lens would have rendered OOF highlights like in the last shot, for instance.
If you like medium format, get yourself a flatbed scanner! I'm using an Epson V700, which is "OK" for 35 mm film, but really good for medium format. I'm scanning 6x7 at 2400 dpi, which gives files with ~8000 pixels width.
Edit: Oh, I'm refering to B&W film. But developing slides cost like 70 SEK at Japanphoto. Don't know about color negatives though, but it'll likely be the same cost.
Makten, the last shot has had some blur as noise reduction applied, but not a lot. I've also added contrast. I'm on a train station now but when I get to my destination I'll post an unprocessed version. I don't think the OOF highlihts were changed much though
Yes, if I continue with film I'll have to get a scanner. I have a flatbed but it can't scanner film negatives.
Denoir I like that first one. My recommendation for all of you is to do what I do and mail your film to the US. NCPS is awesome. Yeah it takes about 3 weeks round trip, but it's worth it. All of my shots I post are budget scans, mostly straight off the CD. They are great and dirt cheap too. Much cheaper than I can get anywhere in Japan, especially now with the dollar tanking.
