|
Negative Lab Pro did this with your scan: Link to 16-bit TIFF There's still too much cyan in the foreground grass but that would likely be fixed with a proper sampling off the film rebate. Neg Lab had to guess the correct mask color here.
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 04:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
Sauer posted:Negative Lab Pro did this with your scan: That came out really well... Also in other news I got myself a voigtlander bessa R3A and 40mm f1.4 nokton a few days ago. Ran a roll of fomapan 400 through it today, all in aperture priority at box speed but unfortunately it ended up a bit underexposed, I think because generally speaking foma 400 is better shot around 200 depending on how the camera meters. I really love the 1:1 viewfinder, I think the 40mm framelines are way too close to the edge of the viewfinder but you get used to it. I found the rangefinder fairly OK to use (all of my shots ended up in focus anyway) but either my eye alignment to the finder is a bit off or there's a slight vertical misalignment to the patch, nothing terrible though. Shutter makes a cool snap, advance lever feels really solid and smooth etc. A few sample shots:  
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 08:18
|
|
|
Sauer posted:Negative Lab Pro did this with your scan: That’s much better as well. Right now I use the subscription based lightroom, which is what I tend to use but I believe doesn’t support extensions. I also recently acquired photoshop though, but I hardly know anything about it yet. I should probably start handling my negative work there—it seems like the color correction tools are more robust.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 12:07
|
|
|
My film processing workflow starts in Ps before I import to Lr I scan as positives so I have to invert them too. - Open file in Ps. - Quick run around with the content-aware healing brush to spot out dust and hairs. - Run this film action that automatically colour corrects and inverts the image - More thorough run around with the content-aware healing brush to spot out dust and hairs. - Do any other editing that is better done in Ps than in Lr (cloning out powerlines, healing skin blemishes, etc) - Import to Lr and edit it like any other digital image.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 12:31
|
|
|
...aaaand bookmarked. Thanks, HH.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 13:38
|
|
|
I just picked up some Fuji Natura 1600 for $40 a roll and the price seems to be rising rapidly now. Anyone ever use this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
President Beep posted:...aaaand bookmarked. Thanks, HH. Don't use a preset. Buy ColorPerfect or learn to do it yourself in the curves dialog. birds posted:I just picked up some Fuji Natura 1600 for $40 a roll and the price seems to be rising rapidly now. Anyone ever use this? You're a sucker. I have a bunch of expired film I can sell to you for only $35 a roll.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 19:13
|
|
|
the preset is trash, just keep doing it manually until it's good, you'll get there eventually and the flexibility it gives you is incredible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
birds posted:I just picked up some Fuji Natura 1600 for $40 a roll and the price seems to be rising rapidly now. Anyone ever use this? i'll sell you some for $34.99 a roll i got a bunch
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
birds posted:I just picked up some Fuji Natura 1600 for $40 a roll and the price seems to be rising rapidly now. Anyone ever use this? Wouldn't be interested in buying some bitcoins would you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
Eeeeyy processed the roll of film I was using to try out a bunch of experimental double exposure techniques and I'm quite pleased with the results. Also pleased with the combination of Ilford FP4+ and Rodinal stand develop, the neggies scanned great and required hardly any editing.   
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 04:27
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:Eeeeyy processed the roll of film I was using to try out a bunch of experimental double exposure techniques and I'm quite pleased with the results. Also pleased with the combination of Ilford FP4+ and Rodinal stand develop, the neggies scanned great and required hardly any editing. Those are really cool! Of the techniques you experimented with, was there one in particular that stood out?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 12:36
|
|
|
I processed two rolls of FP4+ yesterday as well. This is the first time I’ve shot B&W, but I’m pretty happy with how things turned out. Similar to Blackhawk above, I only had to make some minor adjustments in post.   Ended up cropping this one a fair bit, so it does look kinda grainy. President Beep fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Jan 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 13:10
|
|
|
A tale of two Amazon vendors: Powdered Fixer and Powdered developer. The latter wrapped in bubblewrap, put in a sealed plastic bag, put in a small priority box and finally put into a bubble mailer. The former tossed in an oversized amazon box with another item with sharp corners and no padding whatsoever. You can imagine what the former package was like when I opened it. The former was packaged with beehive foundation. No doubt it was enhanced by massive amounts of fixer coating them. Hasselblad fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Jan 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 14:57
|
|
|
Hocus Pocus posted:Those are really cool! Of the techniques you experimented with, was there one in particular that stood out? Cheers! Nothing that stood out in particular however it's pretty clear that they all rely on having perfect lighting conditions. Compare for example the cat image (which I really like) and the obelisk with fence line. The cat works really well because you have completely blown out highlights in the window, while the obelisk doesn't work so well (IMO) because the sky isn't completely blown out and you still get a ghost of the tree that I was overlaying. In retrospect I had a red filter on when taking a photo of the obelisk which made the sky darker, I'm thinking that in the future I need to use a blue filter for that kind of shot to further increase the contrast between the object and background. Basically the whole thing works on the negative being subtractive of light when inverted (highlights on the negative 'take away' from light passing through the negative when printing, which is analogous to inverting in lightroom) so the technique works best when you have an area of the image with apparently no overlay and an area with overlay (typically a dark silhouette which is filled with some kind of pattern). On the negative the highlights are dark and they can only get so black, so if you blow the highlights out those will be your areas with no overlay and the shadows will still show the overlays as they're clear on the neg. So you need a strongly backlight subject with enough dynamic range between light and dark to let you completely blow the highlights if you want a good image, which I imagine would be much easier to engineer with studio lighting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
I know the discussion about loading film onto reels was from a few pages back but one tip that’s really made it easier for me is to wear medical exam gloves to keep the humidity down. Maybe I have abnormally sweaty hands, but if you have issues with the film getting stuck wearing gloves might help.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
For 35mm just extract the leader from the canister, cut straight across, then 45 degree cut the corners, then start it on the reel before putting it in the dark bag.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
Continuing to work through my vacation pics. Developed and scanned my first two rolls of HP5+ today.  Learning to edit color negatives has been pretty frustrating for me, and working with black and white had provided a nice change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 02:13
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:Basically the whole thing works on the negative being subtractive of light when inverted (highlights on the negative 'take away' from light passing through the negative when printing, which is analogous to inverting in lightroom) so the technique works best when you have an area of the image with apparently no overlay and an area with overlay (typically a dark silhouette which is filled with some kind of pattern). On the negative the highlights are dark and they can only get so black, so if you blow the highlights out those will be your areas with no overlay and the shadows will still show the overlays as they're clear on the neg. So you need a strongly backlight subject with enough dynamic range between light and dark to let you completely blow the highlights if you want a good image, which I imagine would be much easier to engineer with studio lighting. You can do it with daylight if you expose for the shadows and compose the shot so that your subject is framed by sky and in front of the sun, that will almost guarantee a blown out sky and then you get the effect you mention here where the subject becomes a mask for your second exposure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 04:29
|
|
|
Spotmatic, Lomography 100 and Fomapan 200 000032.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr  000067.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr  000071.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:
Loving that one
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 19:53
|
|
|
I've decided that this is the year I go back to focusing on film photography. Took my Mamiya out on new years day and I'd forgotten how satisfying it is to shoot with: Yep, it's a Banksy by Tim Breeze, on Flickr  Shed by Tim Breeze, on Flickr  Watchful Wall by Tim Breeze, on Flickr With that in mind, does anyone have a developer they favour with Tri-X? I'm coming to the end of the batch of XTOL I mixed up (which I'm pretty sure expired like 6 months ago, not that it seems any less effective) and I'm thinking of trying something different.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
D76 1:1 is an classic and it’s my preference. Tmax developer or ddx is okay too and hc110 is popular. I don’t like rodinal or id11 with trix
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
I'm thinking about selling my Nikon FE2 so have been looking at eBay listings to get an idea of how much they're going for. Found this listing for a "Unique and Uncommon" FE2 with no shutter speed dial or advance lever. It looks like the shutter has been replaced by two metal plates with machine screws attached. From the description it seems like the mirror stays up unless the DoF preview lever is depressed. It comes with an adapted enlarger lens. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-FE2-35mm-SLR-Unique-And-Uncommon-With-63mm-El-Nikkor-Collector-Camera/253990383044 The seller doesn't know the purpose of these modifications. I'm kind of curious, but have no idea either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
What in the hell? Could it be for some medical/industrial application? Wonder if it's meant to accept some kind of weird slides.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
Looks like a slit scan setup.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
My naive guess would be some modification for shooting video or maybe a panorama? If those metal plates are movable, I assume those screws are there so they open to a precise size (of about half a normal frame, it looks like), then presumably the film could be mechanically wound to create one continuous film strip, or something like that? Edit: I should have refreshed the page. That sounds like I just described slit scan. Wild EEPROM posted:D76 1:1 is an classic and it’s my preference. Is D76 your preference in general, or just for Tri-X? I'm looking to start doing my own B&W development and have no idea where to start for a good general purpose developer and fixer. I don't have any film of choice at the moment, so I'd like to be able to get something that will provide decent results for most B&W film. pseudorandom fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Jan 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
Rodinal/R09 is fine for pretty much anything. It's not great with TriX because TriX is very smooth and Rodinal will make it look grainy, but if you don't mind a bit of grain, it's a fast and easy developer to use. I've used Rodinal and Fomafix with Ilford Delta, Fomapan, FP4, HP5 and a few others with no problem. Currently I'm using Ilfotec LC29 with Ilford Rapid Fixer for my B&W developing but only because I can't get Rodinal easily from local stores.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:I don't like rodinal with trix HERESY!  That slight grain texture in the TriX/Rodinal combination was very common in mid-century photojournalism and higher-end amateur photography, so some people have very fond memories of it. I find its character charming. pseudorandom posted:Is D76 your preference in general, or just for Tri-X? I'm looking to start doing my own B&W development and have no idea where to start for a good general purpose developer and fixer. D76/ID-11 (these are exactly the same once mixed) and HC-110 are your classic all-around choices; pick one and be happy for now; experiment later once you've settled on a few favorite films and what you want to get out of them. Especially when you're new to black and white, it's essentially a Ford/Chevy argument. Other common recommendations are Rodinal and XTol; Rodinal (really its clones; you're unlikely to get real original Rodinal anymore) get a little crunchy with the grain at higher concentrations, and some people have reported issues with XTol where it will just fail, completely and without warning, if the storage isn't handled exactly right. Use any non-hardening rapid fixer. They're basically interchangeable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:...and some people have reported issues with XTol where it will just fail, completely and without warning, if the storage isn't handled exactly right. I'm of the opinion that this is a bunch of crap continually spouted by grouchy APUG graybeards who had used one of the 1L packets of XTOL that did have a problem with the powder clumping and spoiling and have had a hate on for XTOL ever since. Their grumbles have become part of the photographic consciousness. The 5L packs never had that issue from what I can tell. The last bottle of XTOL I used was 11 months old, stored in a clear 1L soda bottle in the cupboard under my sink, mixed with tap water and it had no issue. There was some sediment in the bottom that dissolved with some rigorous shaking but it developed my negatives just fine. As you can see my single anecdote proves everyone wrong! I do have a 1L bottle of XTOL left being saved for a special occasion. Its sitting in the back of my cupboard and is almost two years old. Will use it when its three.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
Sauer posted:I'm of the opinion that this is a bunch of crap continually spouted by grouchy APUG graybeards who had used one of the 1L packets of XTOL that did have a problem with the powder clumping and spoiling and have had a hate on for XTOL ever since. Their grumbles have become part of the photographic consciousness. The 5L packs never had that issue from what I can tell. The last bottle of XTOL I used was 11 months old, stored in a clear 1L soda bottle in the cupboard under my sink, mixed with tap water and it had no issue. There was some sediment in the bottom that dissolved with some rigorous shaking but it developed my negatives just fine. As you can see my single anecdote proves everyone wrong! Ditto, I mixed up my last batch of XTOL last January and I've had it stored in some old plastic water bottles in my closet next to a hot water tank and much to my surprise it worked perfectly. I did have a half full bottle that had gone brown so I think keeping it air tight is probably important.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Looks like a slit scan setup. Googled this and I think you're right. And compared to other hacked setups this modification seems like it was done pretty well. The world of specialized equipment for finish line photography is kind of interesting. It's also the application for this rig that includes what is probably a significant percentage of all the Canon EF-mount 300mm 1.8's in the US. https://petapixel.com/2017/04/27/canon-300mm-f1-8-yes-monster-lens-exists/ Also, my two cents on the B&W film + developer chat: D76/ID-11 is generally good for everything. I like it best with FP4 and Pan-F, ie slower classic film stocks. XTOL is my preferred developer, though. It's supposedly less toxic, as it does not contain hydroquinone. (I'm considering the environment, not personal health & safety, here. Any common B&W developer is safe to use as long as you take very basic precautions.) I've used the 5L powder kits from Kodak as well as the 1L preparations of Fomadon Excel (which is the same thing) and never had problems with either type failing suddenly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
This guy makes C-41 development and shooting with cine film seem super easy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osIYS7mayEE Thoughts? I've heard a lot about how temperature dependent C-41 is etc. But now I'm thinking of giving it a go.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 04:56
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:This guy makes C-41 development and shooting with cine film seem super easy: I think it's pretty easy. Yeah, chems need a certain temp range (I use a tub of water held to temp with a sous vide cooker, chems in their bottles warming in the water). After that I think it's easier than B+W dev - every film is the same time + inversion schedule. If you're scanning your negs afterwards it gets even easier as any colour shift due to having your temps slightly off can be corrected quickly in PS/Lightroom/etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 05:34
|
|
|
Cheers I'll give it a crack. Also I actually really like Ektar! Silly saturation and all, the skin tones are erring on too read though and I think I over-exposed (or maybe it happened in the scan).    
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 08:37
|
|
|
Cinestill is garbage
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 18:54
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Cinestill is garbage Do you mean the particular offerings under the brand 'Cinestill' or photography using cine film in general?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:31
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Cinestill is great  
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 08:02
|
|
|
halation is the new acceleration
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 08:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:halation is the new acceleration Which makes sense as a gripe against Cinestill film where they strip the remjet off but if you're processing cine film at home you leave the remjet on until process so you retain the anti-halation layer. Also drat I want an X-PAN....
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 09:14
|
|