|
Mr. Despair posted:10 years? Pretty optimistic thinking there! Speaking of which, I managed to pick up some Kodak Ektachrome 100G and some Fuji Astia 100F for 120 format. Both have a couple of months left in them before expiry. I feel both excited and sad at the same time. Here's to discontinued film. 
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 03:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
How are you people scanning and post-processing your Ektar? I've apparently lost my touch and am having huge difficulties getting mine to look good. (mightaswell, I am talking to you)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:How are you people scanning and post-processing your Ektar? I've apparently lost my touch and am having huge difficulties getting mine to look good. (mightaswell, I am talking to you) Sorry, I wish I could help. Mine is scanned at a local non-pro 1hr photo lab that I trust. The scans look pretty close to that, I may straighten, crop or nudge a slider or two, but that's it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:How are you people scanning and post-processing your Ektar? I've apparently lost my touch and am having huge difficulties getting mine to look good. (mightaswell, I am talking to you) I just use the software that came with my scanner (Epsonscan) and it gets the color right, then I bump the blacks up a bit and it seems to come out looking pretty good.  
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
   
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 01:38
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:This one is incredible. for shots like this, do you ask the people or do you just shoot?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:This one is incredible. for shots like this, do you ask the people or do you just shoot? I always ask. I took about 4 or 5 pictures of her. And she was on her way to an interview! Man, if I was on my way to an interview I would be so focused and nervous that if somebody came up to me and asked if they could take my picture I would shoe them away faster than an angry wasp. Maybe she was early...
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I always ask. I took about 4 or 5 pictures of her. And she was on her way to an interview! Man, if I was on my way to an interview I would be so focused and nervous that if somebody came up to me and asked if they could take my picture I would shoe them away faster than an angry wasp. Maybe she was early... Haha, i wish i could grow the balls to do that. i only asked because that one looked less like she was paying attention to you. your pictures are doing nothing to calm my intense wanting for a hasselblad.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
Mannequin, please never stop doing street portraits. Every so often you talk about feeling the need to get out of a rut or expand your skills or whatever, and I'm not gonna tell you not to do that, but please, even if youi take a years-long break from it, dip your toes into the street-portrait pool and snap a few every so often. You're goddam good at it, I love your pictures. *** Anybody else love old, expired (dirt cheap) film? More than a year ago I bought a mixed lot of expired, mostly B&W film from an eBay store in Michigan. I've slowly been working my way through the rolls, including some Kodak Tri-X that I've revised my estimate of how old it is. No boxes, little in the way of labelling, but I'm starting to think the green-on-pale-yellow colour of the cartridges and the fact one of the rolls had 20 exposures (the others are 36) indicates they're from the late 1970's, maybe early 1980's. What effect does being 30 years past expiration have on B&W film? I'm still not 100% certain - there are other factors, including my developing skills / lack thereof - but I'm leaning towards Loss of contrast and Increased grain as main effects.  Old Film Self Portrait unedited by Execudork, on Flickr Straight from the scanner. Scanned on an Epson Perfection 3170 with Epsonscan software, as TIFF (uncompressed), 300dpi, target size 4x6 inches, all automatic corrections turned off.  Old Film Self Portrait edited by Execudork, on Flickr Same photo, run through Lightroom 3.6, pretty aggressive slider movements, including -30 brightness +100 contrast +70 presence Noise reduction +60 / detail 50 / contrast 10 And crop, of course. Question: is there a choice among the various forms of TIFF that lets me edit scans from film in Lightroom 3.6 more like RAW images than like JPEG?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 03:49
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:[...] I don't know of Lightroom exactly, but in Photoshop there is a preference, under "file handling" I believe, where you can set Photoshop to treat TIFF files as RAW. I think/hope that the same probably applies to Lightroom in some way. In other news I had a quick 2 minute play with your picture. Consider cropping the black and white frames, as it allows you to hone in more precisely on the desired black and white levels. Other than that I just did a slight highpass & sharpen. 
VomitOnLino fucked around with this message at 04:06 on May 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 04:04
|
|
|
Has anyone dealt with Dwayne's as for as scanning goes? How's the quality?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 13:31
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:I just use the software that came with my scanner (Epsonscan) and it gets the color right, then I bump the blacks up a bit and it seems to come out looking pretty good. i never liked epsonscan and it is awfully slow. silverfast is what I use and I think there was a ektar profile?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 00:16
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:i never liked epsonscan and it is awfully slow. silverfast is what I use and I think there was a ektar profile? I can't get Silverfast to run on my computer, always quits with some cryptic error. I have vuescan too, but it's film profiles for my scanner (V600) seem pretty terrible.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 05:32
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:I can't get Silverfast to run on my computer, always quits with some cryptic error. I have vuescan too, but it's film profiles for my scanner (V600) seem pretty terrible. What's the error? I know a few people around here have had Silverfast issues and someone may be able to help you.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 07:05
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Mannequin, please never stop doing street portraits. Every so often you talk about feeling the need to get out of a rut or expand your skills or whatever, and I'm not gonna tell you not to do that, but please, even if youi take a years-long break from it, dip your toes into the street-portrait pool and snap a few every so often. You're goddam good at it, I love your pictures. 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 07:23
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:What's the error? I know a few people around here have had Silverfast issues and someone may be able to help you. Well, never mind. I just downloaded the newest version and got the Demo license and all that. Everything seems to work fine now. The color profiles definitely seem better than Vuescan though. The auto frame detection is pretty terrible (or I'm doing it wrong). Epson scan seems to do it perfect 95% of the time (unless the frame is very underexposed then it does weird things).
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Well, never mind. I just downloaded the newest version and got the Demo license and all that. Everything seems to work fine now. The color profiles definitely seem better than Vuescan though. You might be better off making your own "film profile" by scanning all of your negatives as positives and inverting/making a curves action in Photoshop. Frame detection sucks in Epson Scan, too, but just not as much  .
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
Film profiles in scanning software are almost universally garbage. Just scan the negative so it comes out flat with a lot of detail. It shouldn't look that great straight out of the scanner. You do everything in post.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 21:06
|
|
|
I'm still having metering problems with my Sekonic L758. It's a tricky beast! I took it out this afternoon in the park, along with my old meter, (which is half broken but still works if I hold it together with my fingers), my dslr, and my Pentax 67 w/built-in meter. I measured light under several different lighting conditions, and still found that the most successful metering method is my old one -- with the Luna Pro analog meter and a gray card. There were several instances where all four meter readings (the fourth from my dslr) matched. But the most uneven results came from the Sekonic. For instance, there was a tree that I attempted to meter that was cast in part shadow and part light. Old metering method included measuring the brights, measuring the darks, then finding the average. Dslr and Pentax matrix meters generally matched, although sometimes the Pentax wanted to under or overexpose. The Sekonic, on the other hand, was really pretty bad. I don't think the meter is working improperly, I just think I need to practice with it a whole lot more, and with a digital camera at my side so I can really understand where the meter needs to be to get the right results. Under the three, the Sekonic told me 1/60 at f/4. Everything else pointed to 1/125 at f/4. Of course, the tree extended upwards and the branches were covered with leaves so this somewhat dimmed the light from where I placed the meter (which was about a foot away from the base of the tree). It turns out, I had to step back about 15 feet, out of the shade of the tree altogether, until finally it read 1/125. If I had been shooting this with my Hasselblad I would have had an overexposed shot. Although one-stop difference isn't terrible, I really need true accuracy. And this was only one example. Sometimes it was off by 2-stops! I would not have thought under that particular instance to step back so far away. I mean, shouldn't I be placing the meter in the same light that the tree is in? The only part of the meter I still have to really explore is the use of "midtones" which has something to do with showing you where the highlights and shadows will get clipped if you expose too far one way or the other. I'm not sure if that's going to help me. I'm just really not happy with this. I feel like I almost need an experienced person to show me how to do this. I'm not an idiot, but I just haven't gotten this to work for me yet. It's frustrating. I'll hold onto it because I know I will find future uses, and may eventually go back to it full time. But for now I've ordered another one of my Luna Pros just so that I can shoot with my Hasselblad with confidence.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 04:46
|
|
|
Seems to me you're trying to compare apples to oranges in terms of how you're metering the scene. You will only get identical results if all 4 tools you're using are collecting light with the same angular range (or light cone). So if you're metering a high contrast scene with the spot meter on the Sekonic (I think its a spot meter), which may have a collection angle between 1-5 degrees, then comparing that to the Luna Pro which has a collection angle between 7.5-15 degrees, you're going to get different results, as spot meter is only made to measuring the light of a very small area of a scene and not the entire scene its self. And as you moved away from the tree you were metering you noticed all the values became the same, this is due to you moving so far way from the scene basically all the meters are metering off the same objects, and are then all seeing the same contrast and averaging the exposure. I think it'll all click for you if you work out what the collection angles are for all your meters, (the DSLR should be able to do spot and scene metering), and then really read up on the difference between spot and average metering, and then go out for some more trials.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 06:00
|
|
|
Yeah, spot metering vs. center-weighted metering vs. matrix metering, and then collection angle differences are going to give you very different results. And really 1/60 vs. 1/125 isn't a HUGE difference for it to be off by. Does your Sekonic have any way of calibrating? I know a lot of hand-held meters do, maybe in the battery compartment.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 13:06
|
|
|
Shoot Tri-X, develop in Diafine, give no fucks
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 13:11
|
|
|
Fomapan 400 with 1:100 Rodinal, for the budget conscious 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 13:58
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Shoot Tri-X, develop in Diafine, give no fucks every day
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 15:26
|
|
|
First off, yes to the Tri-X = give no fucks, but honestly with film I shoot in general "give no fucks" mode as far as a half stop or stop here or there. It's just so drat much more forgiving. When in doubt I just overexpose by a stop and stuff always looks good. I have abandoned all my light meters and just use an app called "light meter" on my iphone. It tells me nearly identical results to my 5D3's meter most of the time and I haven't missed a shot when using it.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 15:46
|
|
|
If you truly give no fucks, shoot any film at any speed and stand develop for 100 minutes in Rodinal 1+100. Agitate with one inversion at 60 minutes. Cliched and Unoriginal by atomicthumbs, on Flickr This is HP5+, shot at 3200 and developed using that method.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 17:24
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Seems to me you're trying to compare apples to oranges in terms of how you're metering the scene. You will only get identical results if all 4 tools you're using are collecting light with the same angular range (or light cone). So if you're metering a high contrast scene with the spot meter on the Sekonic (I think its a spot meter), which may have a collection angle between 1-5 degrees, then comparing that to the Luna Pro which has a collection angle between 7.5-15 degrees, you're going to get different results, as spot meter is only made to measuring the light of a very small area of a scene and not the entire scene its self. And as you moved away from the tree you were metering you noticed all the values became the same, this is due to you moving so far way from the scene basically all the meters are metering off the same objects, and are then all seeing the same contrast and averaging the exposure. The Sekonic can do spot metering but I was using it as an incident meter. Sorry, should have clarified that. The others are of a reflective nature. Although the Luna has a certain range of view I point it pretty squarely at the gray card, usually within about 6 or 7 inches so that it's really absorbing the light from it. QPZIL posted:Yeah, spot metering vs. center-weighted metering vs. matrix metering, and then collection angle differences are going to give you very different results. And really 1/60 vs. 1/125 isn't a HUGE difference for it to be off by. Does your Sekonic have any way of calibrating? I know a lot of hand-held meters do, maybe in the battery compartment. Neither were center-weighted. The Sekonic was incident, the Luna Pro was a form of reflective metering / incident in a weird way, and the two matrix meters were reflective. The dslr and the Luna Pro gave most consistent results, followed by the Pentax. The Sekonic fell into last place but, again, I think I just have to really use it a lot before it clicks for me. That's just frustrating when you can't afford too many exposure mistakes with film. It might be better off in the studio. Haven't tried it with my strobes yet.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
I don't know man, a Sekonic 758 is the only meter I use and it works just fine for me . That's across 4 bodies I use regularly as well as 2 backups. I don't do any digital proofing, either. I don't know why you wouldn't be able to get consistent results from it. I can even check my work with its incident vs spot meter if I'm doing zone shooting.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
Well if it makes a difference, I struggled getting good results using the Luna Pro as an incident meter (with the dome in place aiming back at the camera). My other method of aiming it at the gray card in the same light as my subject (without the dome) was 95% effective. I mean, every shot on my flickr stream with the Hasselblad was shot with the exposure settings I got from my Luna Pro, save for the last few which were sort-of hit or miss due to the Sekonic. I don't know. I mean, I'm doing it the way you're supposed to. I'm following the instructions in the manual and it's just not working right. I don't get it. When the new Luna arrives I will try it out in incident mode with the dome and see if I have better luck. It may be a way of ruling out that the Sekonic is not functioning properly.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 01:16
|
|
|
Point the dome at the light source, not the camera :-)
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 01:29
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Point the dome at the light source, not the camera :-) Not always true, but this is what the whole "learning to interpret your meter" thing is all about.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
Anyone know what caused these vertical lines on the image below? At first I thought it was my scanner but I re-scanned them in and they were appearing in the same location in the frame. Large version is available on Flickr, if you zoom in they're magenta and cyan lines. Test by jemuelb, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
They don't look like scratches, I'd say it's either something that went weird in development or it is actually your scanner. Maybe rescan it, but rotate the film 180 degrees and see if it's in the same place.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
Not to be a dick and directly contradict pennydude, but I'm thinking it could be a scratch on the negative. Does it show up on any other pictures? I've had similar striping effects that I think were caused by a bit of sand or grit getting into the film cartridge and getting stuck in the soft fabric/foam there. Not 100% sure, though. Did you develop those yourself or at a lab? Some labs don't keep their equipment perfectly clean, and a bit of something on a roller could cause effects like that.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
I got two rolls of 120 developed at the local camera shop and the same feint lines appear pretty much on every frame that I've scanned in. I'm pretty sure it's not my scanner because I re-scanned another roll of 120 that I got developed a few days ago and the same lines didn't show up. I've just never had this type of thing happen before and I've been going to the same shop for months.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
To echo Execudork, that looks like something might have gotten stuck in the felt or in the roller transport at the shop, particularly since it showed up in some scans but not others (which rules out a hot pixel in your scanner).
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 04:36
|
|
|
I re-scanned them using Digital ICE (I use the Epson V600) thinking it would help the problem, but it didn't. Looks like I have some Photoshop work to do.  But thanks for the help guys.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 04:56
|
|
|
Is your scanner glass completely clean? If there's glass in the calibration area your scans can get strange lines.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 07:03
|
|
|
^^ That is exactly want those lines are. I get them frequently on a V600. Clean the glass on the top of the scanner, don't forget the glass in the lid.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 07:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
http://www.frankdoorhof.com/site/2011/09/my-twit-photo-interview/ I found this video very helpful in learning how to use a light meter. Seems to me that it is logical that a incident meter would indicate less light in the shade of the tree than in the open field. I'm a newbie at this light metering thing but shouldn't you be incident metering in the field, you probably want to have the part of the picture under the tree appear slightly shaded as it appeared to you. If you meter for middle gray under the tree then everything will appear overexposed.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 09:17
|
|