|
VomitOnLino posted:
It is not. Diafine works best on old tech films. Honestly you don't need tabular grain with it Tri-x (or HP5) @1250 is practically grainless in it.
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2016 11:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:49 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
I like it
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
 Two Lights State Park by spike mccue, on Flickr Awkward Davies fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Jun 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
http://www.kijiji.ca/v-camera-camcorder-lens/edmonton/fujifilm-frontier-sp3000-digital-scanner-w-120-set-up/1145601559
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
a show / collection of these would be loving tight
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
I'm slowly building a set: http://www.lucasdeshazer.com/glow
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
e: ^^^ well gently caress, following that up... Untitled (Raytown) by Drew Davis, on Flickr Been too long since I've posted anything...I've been waking up every weekend around 6 am to walk the neighborhood I grew up in with an idea to document the area (1960s destination subrub, fallen into a sort of poverty), but getting the rolls back I'm just not thrilled with most of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
Shot on Provia 100. Chrome looks lovely with this stuff. Bentley by Iain Compton, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
 Is my lens delaminating in the lower left?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
my first exposures through a medium format camera, yashica 124g from ethanfr0me on this very forum A169879_006.jpg by Sean Beck, on Flickr A169879_010.jpg by Sean Beck, on Flickr harvard by Sean Beck, on Flickrstill figuring out what shutter speeds I can hand hold and shoot. are the white specks dust? Karl Barks fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:still figuring out what shutter speeds I can hand hold and shoot. are the white specks dust? A. Depends on how tack sharp you want every iota of your photo. B. Yes. Dust your negatives you slob.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:still figuring out what shutter speeds I can hand hold and shoot. 1/focal length, as usual. Maybe a bit faster to be on the safe side, if possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
i didn't scan these negatives. i thought i read somewhere that medium format had some some leeway with shutter speed vs 35mm, but i wouldn't be surprised if that was bs. thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
You can probably go a little slower with a TLR since there is no mirror slap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:i didn't scan these negatives. i thought i read somewhere that medium format had some some leeway with shutter speed vs 35mm, but i wouldn't be surprised if that was bs. thanks. Oh yeah I forgot you are using a TLR. If you need to, you can probably go 1-2 stops slower than the rule of thumbs then, if you have steady hands or brace yourself well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:i didn't scan these negatives. i thought i read somewhere that medium format had some some leeway with shutter speed vs 35mm, but i wouldn't be surprised if that was bs. thanks. Dusting your negatives also means cloning them out manually in LR or Photoshop. Unless you work on a clean room it's almost impossible to get a dust free scan
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
 1 hour @ f/22
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:
It's great that it isn't filled with light streaks from cars. Is it usually this quiet, or just really late and not busy at all ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 10:43
|
|
|
 Shanghai GP 100 thedoorstopper fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:
I really like how the foliage at the foreground blends with the land mass. Pretty cool stuff. What do you use to scan btw?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:
I love this - I'm surprised you shot it at f/22, is there something funny with hyperfocal distance and MF that doesn't work the same as on 35mm film/digital cameras? I would have thought it's better to shoot at f/16 or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
The f stop is a ratio of aperture size and focal length. Since MF/LF uses larger equivalent focal lengths, the aperture opening at f22 is going to be a lot larger than that on 35mm, so diffraction will be less. That's my understanding of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:The f stop is a ratio of aperture size and focal length. Since MF/LF uses larger equivalent focal lengths, the aperture opening at f22 is going to be a lot larger than that on 35mm, so diffraction will be less. That's my understanding of it. Correct. There's a reason why there are so many things out there named 'f64'; at large format it's a real thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Ah that makes total sense. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:It's great that it isn't filled with light streaks from cars. It was 2am, mostly quiet - the large streak through the center is actually a single train. On the right side there's a set of red and white lights, that's an interstate. evilspoon21 posted:I really like how the foliage at the foreground blends with the land mass. Pretty cool stuff. What do you use to scan btw? Epson V700 with Silverfast for 48bit scans VelociBacon posted:I love this - I'm surprised you shot it at f/22, is there something funny with hyperfocal distance and MF that doesn't work the same as on 35mm film/digital cameras? I would have thought it's better to shoot at f/16 or something. Like BANME said it's a different game in LF. I needed f/22 just to get a reasonable amount of the scene in focus. Normally I'd go a bit further (f/29) but reciprocity failure would have made the exposure far too long to be worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:
How do you focus in the dark? Do you just set everything up during the day and then wait for the sun to set? I have trouble focusing my LF camera indoors because it's so dark.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
I focused on the lights in the distance with a loupe. Generally for night scenes that are so dark I have trouble composing I use a green laser to help outline the frame edges and to focus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:The f stop is a ratio of aperture size and focal length. Since MF/LF uses larger equivalent focal lengths, the aperture opening at f22 is going to be a lot larger than that on 35mm, so diffraction will be less. That's my understanding of it. thetzar posted:Correct. There's a reason why there are so many things out there named 'f64'; at large format it's a real thing. Correct thought process but not reason. F/22 on LF is the same size as f/22 on any other format at the same focal length but larger capture medium means less diffraction limiting of the enlargement. This makes a huge difference when 4x5 is only a 4x enlargement to make an 8x10 print but 35mm is something like 50x.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Correct thought process but not reason. F/22 on LF is the same size as f/22 on any other format at the same focal length but larger capture medium means less diffraction limiting of the enlargement. This makes a huge difference when 4x5 is only a 4x enlargement to make an 8x10 print but 35mm is something like 50x. Which is also why LF makes smoother large prints, and by larger I mean probably bigger than a person, like mural-sized. That said, the high MP sensors do a good job now of enlargements.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
I just picked up a Medalist II from KEH that I intend to ship off to Ken Ruth for 120 conversion. My email got this automated response:quote:Bald Mountain's shop will be closed until July 1st so Ken can recover his health. (He is expected to make a full recovery!) He will respond to phone calls, emails, and packages then. Uh, I'd been planning to do this sooner rather than later because this is a Mark Hama type dude who is a wizened octogenarian master at this, but if you want a 120 Medalist conversion you might want to do it like really soon. That's not a promising email in the long term.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 10:30
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Is it just me or does Lightroom's auto white balance always trends towards "super orange/yellow"  Water Street by spike mccue, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Is it just me or does Lightroom's auto white balance always trends towards "super orange/yellow" I'm not sure about trends but it's pretty lovely alright, especially for film shots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
LR does alright by me when I have an even shot with a good middle gray point in it & Portra 400 note that this became un-true when I tried to use Vuescan, nothing seemed to work right with my negs outta Vuescan
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:I'm not sure about trends but it's pretty lovely alright, especially for film shots. For me, Lightroom tends to add a lot of blue/green on film. I have to warm pictures up and move the white balance towards red to not get super dark cold tones everywhere - usually I shoot Portra 160 or Colourmax 200.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 10:10
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:For me, Lightroom tends to add a lot of blue/green on film. I have to warm pictures up and move the white balance towards red to not get super dark cold tones everywhere - usually I shoot Portra 160 or Colourmax 200. I have the opposite problem, same as awkward davies - lots of orange/yellow/red gets added. But I pretty much only shoot ektar.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:49 |
|
|
And how are you getting your negatives into lightroom in the first place? Surely you're doing some of the color first, either through your scanning program or Photoshop. Lots of blue and green just sounds like the curves haven't been touched - red will always be the weakest layer, then green, then blue, purely because of how each layer is laid on the emulsion
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 16:12
|
|