highdesertmesa wrote:
First film scans came back from the M4-P and CineStill BwXX (ISO 250). Lens used varied between 35 Lux pre-ASPH v2 and the 28 Summaron f/5.6 re-issue.
Between me using a light red filter and what appears to be very high contrast scans from the lab, it took quite a bit of editing to get the files into this state – max shadow slider + lowered contrast slider by about half.
That's really high grain for BwXX, though I've only shot it on 120 (6x6). It is a high contrast film, and I really like it, but it's a bit expensive for everyday use. I do like the way the final shots came out, though.
Jman13 wrote:
That's really high grain for BwXX, though I've only shot it on 120 (6x6). It is a high contrast film, and I really like it, but it's a bit expensive for everyday use. I do like the way the final shots came out, though.
I’m waiting for the negs to come back from the lab. I was compensating 2 stops for the light red filter and should have done 2.5 stops, so negs may be a bit thin. Also the lab scans were crazy contrasty — I was surprised I was able to salvage them to the level you see in the post. I may move to developing and scanning on my own for b&w. Also going to try the Ilford prepaid mailers that send you back actual silver halide prints, which may scan with less grain than from the negs.
Been enjoying shooting P&S lately, unfortunately I'm finding the corners of my cheap P&S to be really soft (Fuji DL-95 and Canon Sure Shot Owl).
Have a Canon Sure Shot AF-7 on its way that I'm hoping will be better.
Mamiya 7 II 65mm f/4, Kodak Portra 400 home-developed with the Cinestill Cs41 kit. Scanned on Epson V850 using Silverfast AI. Downtown Reykjavík, Iceland this spring.
It's interesting to me that I take much different photos when I have film in my hand. I'm not sure why that is...maybe it's the OVF, maybe it's just being influenced by other film shooters, but I often come home with shots that are unlike my usual work, and I have no idea if it's good, bad, or indifferent.
