|
How much editing does eveyone do on the film scans? Im stuck really, because i switched to film because i love the film look, and didnt want to rely so heavily on photoshop, but after scanning i still open them up and do my normal editing, but cant tell if im losing the thing that makes film great. A few examples (done very quickly) Straight from the scanner  Exposure boost  Normal edit  Scanner  Exposure  Edit  Scanner  Exposure  Edit  I just need some new eyes on them really.
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
Pompous Rhombous posted:Did you have them push (overdevelop) it? Tri-X is one of the most push-able films, I often rate mine at 1600. No, I just got them to the lab, and picked them up a few days after. In hindsight, I definitely should've used ISO1600 and just asked the lab to push them in post. spritely posted:These look overdeveloped and/or underexposed, Hoss. If this is what I was shooting I'd set my ISO at 1600, and shutter priority at 60. Then push twice when developing. Tri-x 400 would be my choice as well. Underexposed, really. In some ways, I like the huge amounts of black, but, ehhhh, they could really use more details. Still, I'll definitely keep that in mind for my next roll.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 00:43
|
|
|
DanTheFryingPan posted:No, I just got them to the lab, and picked them up a few days after. In hindsight, I definitely should've used ISO1600 and just asked the lab to push them in post. Even if you didn't originally expose it at 1600, you can still tell the lab to push any remaining rolls you have that you think might be underexposed. It's not anything done in post, they just leave the film in the developer longer. For whatever reason they usually charge a premium for this (I guess they do stuff in bulk so it's a little more bother to do individual rolls differently) but it's generally not unreasonable. Also, with B&W and print film you want to expose for the shadows, rather than the highlights like you might be used to with digital.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 00:58
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:How much editing does eveyone do on the film scans? Do you like that really overexposed look? It looks like a little too much for me. I try not to mess with my film too much, I do give it some slight contrast and saturation boosts to make up for the scanner. I also do USM. Keep in mind that if you were developing these in the darkroom you could do all sorts of things to them, most of which have parallels in photoshop, so don't feel too bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 01:07
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:How much editing does eveyone do on the film scans? A negative is just a starting point. You're barely "editing" them as it is, and really if you were doing this in a darkroom the exposure/contrast stuff is the bare minimum you would have to do in order to actually make a print anyways. Stuff generally looks like poo poo straight out of a scanner anyways, and a "straight" interpretation of a negative is rarely the most interesting or best way to make it an image. dorkasaurus_rex posted:Y'all need to get down with the 160s. I like 160NC and all, but there's just something about 160s. I still rock 160vc and 400NC/VC quite frequently, so I ain't hatin on Portra, but Fujifilm brings a lot to the table. Hell yeah that's my favorite color print film. I think I still have a few rolls of it in the freezer from when it was called Reala. brad industry fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Dec 20, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 01:22
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:How much editing does eveyone do on the film scans? If you're going to play the high contrast game try fiddling with curves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 01:27
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Hell yeah that's my favorite color print film. I think I still have a few rolls of it in the freezer from when it was called Reala. Is 160S seriously really the new Reala? That would explain a lot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 01:43
|
|
|
I can't keep track because they've re-branded a few times. I think Reala became NPC, then it became 160C. I know they sell a consumer one now called "Superia Reala", the 160C is just the pro version.
brad industry fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Dec 20, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 02:11
|
|
|
I loved the old pro Reala 100 in medium format. It was my favourite colour film. I tried a roll of 160S and it was sort of like Reala. I was wondering why Reala was starting to get so hard to find in 120.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 02:26
|
|
|
Oh poo poo, I've been wondering the same thing. I hunted two great camera stores for Reala and both were out. So 160S is Reala for sure? Did the emulsion change or what?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 03:57
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:How much editing does eveyone do on the film scans?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 06:24
|
|
|
Anyone use those Fuji E6 processing mailers for 35mm? Am I stuck with getting my shots put in slide mounts or can I get them to cut the film into strips?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 08:31
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:I say do whatever you think looks good. But everything you've done here can easily be done with a photo enlarger or by slight changes your development technique, so if you're worried about losing a certain "film look", you shouldn't. Auto level is a good quick fix for many untouched scans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 10:49
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #20 posted:Anyone use those Fuji E6 processing mailers for 35mm? Am I stuck with getting my shots put in slide mounts or can I get them to cut the film into strips? You should be able to get them cut into strips, write something like "SLEEVE - DO NOT MOUNT" on the form. Personally I find mounted 35mm slides easier to scan/handle, albeit slower (can only do 4 at a time).
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 13:52
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Oh poo poo, I've been wondering the same thing. I hunted two great camera stores for Reala and both were out. So 160S is Reala for sure? Did the emulsion change or what? I am pretty sure 160C is Reala, I think 160S is one of the newer emulsions (I actually haven't tried it). The main difference between the Fuji films is contrast, they all use the same 4-layer emulsion so the color is pretty similar.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 23:54
|
|
|
800 ISO print film pop quiz: Any opinions on Kodak Portra 800, Fuji Superia 800, Fuji Press 800 (do they still make this?) and Fuji Pro 800z?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2009 01:31
|
|
|
I was wondering the same thing, actually. What I read is basically that Press 800 and 800npz are basically the same thing in different formats/lengths. The impression I got was that 800npz was grainier than Portra 800, but I haven't used any of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2009 02:45
|
|
|
Snaily posted:800 ISO print film pop quiz: Any opinions on Kodak Portra 800, Fuji Superia 800, Fuji Press 800 (do they still make this?) and Fuji Pro 800z? I love Portra 800, and am dreading the day I run out, because I don't want to have to pay full price. :-/ Photos I've made on Portra 800, most of them exposed at EI640
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2009 03:25
|
|
|
Snaily posted:800 ISO print film pop quiz: Any opinions on Kodak Portra 800, Fuji Superia 800, Fuji Press 800 (do they still make this?) and Fuji Pro 800z? Portra 800 is nice but I think Fuji 800 is better as a matter of personal preference. here's my shots on it: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=fuji%20800&w=57894797%40N00 this is far from a fiercely held opinion, I've shot Portra 800 tons of times and still have loads of it which I probably will continue to shoot, but when you get right down to it, I'm a Fuji guy for the higher ISOs in color.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2009 17:05
|
|
|
I've used store brand Fuji Superia 800 and it's okay, but not that great. Mind you, that's the consumer stuff not the pro stuff. To be honest, I'd rather use my DSLR for colour high ISO work or shoot black and white if it has to be film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2009 20:00
|
|
|
Who here has a blog (as opposed to an image hosting site) of film images or about film photography (even if it's just peripherally about photography) or know of some more interesting ones? I just edited down my RSS feeds and am looking for something to hold my attention while I'm at my office this holiday season. I have a blog at http://ditchwatertheblog.blogspot.com/. though I don't update it a whole heck of alot. edit: I hope this doesn't break the "no personal information" rule. If it makes you feel creepy posting your url feel free to PM me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2009 21:49
|
|
|
HPL posted:I've used store brand Fuji Superia 800 and it's okay, but not that great. Mind you, that's the consumer stuff not the pro stuff. To be honest, I'd rather use my DSLR for colour high ISO work or shoot black and white if it has to be film. If I had a DSLR I probably would, too. With the spread of comments, the question seems to have devolved into what I can find locally. Shame that film is that difficult to get these days.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2009 23:42
|
|
|
Snaily posted:If I had a DSLR I probably would, too. I guess it depends on what country you're in but I buy almost all of my film online (usually Freestyle for B&W films, eBay for color). The local selection is pretty dismal where I live, generally only buy film from them if I'm in a rush.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2009 23:57
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I guess it depends on what country you're in but I buy almost all of my film online (usually Freestyle for B&W films, eBay for color). The local selection is pretty dismal where I live, generally only buy film from them if I'm in a rush. I'm leaving for New York on a short trip in a few days, and realized the Superia 400 I had planned to use is pretty dull and slow after shooting Tri-X at 1250  Dismal is the word here, too. Normally I buy film online and have it delivered to a chain store, but it seems not even Fujifilm themselves care all that much about the Swedish market (they still claim that 800z is called NPZ800 on their swedish website, for instance). There's always buying at B&H or Adorama once I get to NYC, but I'd like to have some film in the camera while travelling, too. Perhaps some ISO 400 slides would be amusing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 00:13
|
|
|
Snaily posted:I'm leaving for New York on a short trip in a few days, and realized the Superia 400 I had planned to use is pretty dull and slow after shooting Tri-X at 1250 A trip to NYC sounds like the perfect time to stock up on film! If you like Tri-X, order some Arista Premium 400 from Freestyle and have it shipped to your hotel. It's rebranded Tri-X, available in 24 or 36exp rolls, as well as 100' bulk spools. My favorite slide film for cross processing was Kodak Elitechrome 400. Kind of hard to find now though :-\
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 00:40
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:A trip to NYC sounds like the perfect time to stock up on film! If you like Tri-X, order some Arista Premium 400 from Freestyle and have it shipped to your hotel. It's rebranded Tri-X, available in 24 or 36exp rolls, as well as 100' bulk spools. I'm just debating how much film I can carry with me in the carry-on. 25 rolls is reasonable, right? Right? Though if worst come to worst I'd really prefer buying film that's completely unavailable here (i.e. 800z) than film that is available, but hilariously expensive (e.g. Ektar 100, Tri-X). I also have to decide whether to buy 135 only or feed the ol' semi-broken Hasselblad some 120. Decisions, decisions. What's the decorum for having stuff shipped to a hotel, anyway? Write name, c/o the hotel? Freestyle are not competitive for all films, but the Arista ones are amazingly cheap.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 01:08
|
|
|
Snaily posted:I'm just debating how much film I can carry with me in the carry-on. 25 rolls is reasonable, right? Right? I haven't done mass quantities of film flying yet, but you can request a hand inspection of as much as you want AFAIK. I'm not sure how they'd handle a bulk roll or sheet film, probably not something the average TSA worker would have experience with. I'm planning on moving overseas next year and it's something I've been giving a thought to as of late. Yeah, I usually look for slightly outdated stuff being sold by individual sellers on eBay for color, but Freestyle's got my money as far as B&W film goes (I wish they made Premium 400 in 120, last I checked they still didn't). Name and c/o the hotel should be enough, but you might want to contact them in advance just to make sure. I've never had a problem though, if you're interested in renting a lens for your trip it might be a good opportunity to try that out as well. There are a number of companies in the United States who do mail order rentals of various lenses/digital bodies, rates are generally by the week.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 01:44
|
|
|
Snaily posted:I'm just debating how much film I can carry with me in the carry-on. 25 rolls is reasonable, right? Right? I've carried more than that before. You can request a hand-check (and they are required to do it if you ask) although they always loving bitch about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 02:16
|
|
|
From my limited flying, they also never actually seem to give he film more than a glance, so its not even like they have to do any more work. Jerks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 02:39
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I've carried more than that before. You can request a hand-check (and they are required to do it if you ask) although they always loving bitch about it. They're always polite when I ask them to do it, sometimes they even compliment me on my equipment. :>
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 02:58
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:They're always polite when I ask them to do it, sometimes they even compliment me on my equipment. :> Yeah, same here (well not being complemented on my equipment, but I've never even gotten the slightest hassle).
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 03:44
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I've carried more than that before. You can request a hand-check (and they are required to do it if you ask) although they always loving bitch about it. I've tried that both in China and Spain to no avail. Never had a roll ruined yet, though - perhaps they both had newer machines? Maybe third time's the charm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 10:30
|
|
|
Supposedly, anything less than 1600 ISO is fine to go through a machine. You can also get an x-ray film bag (which shows up as a big blob on the cameras) which they simply hand check as opposed to hand checking everything else you have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 10:38
|
|
|
theflyingexecutive posted:Supposedly, anything less than 1600 ISO is fine to go through a machine. You can also get an x-ray film bag (which shows up as a big blob on the cameras) which they simply hand check as opposed to hand checking everything else you have. I've heard that too. As mch as I'd like to get a lead-lined bag, it does seems excessive (and heavy). I don't plan to buy 1600+ ISO film anyway. I had the same roll of ISO 400 Minox film in the camera during at least ten domestic flights, and that came out just fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 10:57
|
|
|
Snaily posted:I've tried that both in China and Spain to no avail. Never had a roll ruined yet, though - perhaps they both had newer machines? Like brad said, they're required to do it. This is America, baby  theflyingexecutive posted:Supposedly, anything less than 1600 ISO is fine to go through a machine. You can also get an x-ray film bag (which shows up as a big blob on the cameras) which they simply hand check as opposed to hand checking everything else you have. I've heard that, but also that if you leave it in your checked bags, those go through much more powerful scanners that can ruin even slower films. I try not to leave it to chance. Also, if it's an ISO 400 film (like Tri-X), does it "count" if you're pushing it to 1600?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 15:12
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Also, if it's an ISO 400 film (like Tri-X), does it "count" if you're pushing it to 1600? TSA specifically says if you're pushing (or going through more than... 3? carry-on machines), have it hand-checked. I've had slower film fogged going through two machines, so it's all hand-check now for me. Edit: TSA: Traveling with Film The U.S. Government posted:At the passenger security checkpoint, you should remove the following types of film from your carry-on baggage and ask for a hand inspection:
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 17:29
|
|
|
Molten Llama posted:TSA specifically says if you're pushing (or going through more than... 3? carry-on machines), have it hand-checked. I had some ISO 200 film fogged after going through 2 machines so I don't trust them anymore and always do a hand check. I dunno why I always get the cranky TSA people, but yeah they are required to do it if you ask in the US. I always throw in 1 roll of 1600 ISO just to have an excuse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 19:22
|
|
|
I don't usually carry film with me that's higher than 800 ISO but I've had loads and loads of film go through the X-Ray machines and never had a problem with any of them. Maybe I'm just lucky?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 20:01
|
|
|
This is really interesting that people have had such different experiences. My guess would have to be based on the composition of the film container itself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 03:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
Nah, a tiny bit of polypropylene plastic won't slow an xray down at all. I would get any film hand checked - I've heard there are scanners that will increase the power if they can't see into everything. The power has been sliding upwards since 9/11.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 06:30
|
|