|
My (digital shooting) friend convinced me that Lightroom was the way to go, and I sprung for NLP. First properly(as best as I know how) scanned and edited image. Bonus points, the roll I was upset about losing showed up, so this is one from that. Leica iii, 135mm Leica Hektor f4.5, Kodak Colorplus 200. My flatbed scanner is an Epson V370, scanning with VueScan into a .dng. It's older and with the full image file(and probably in that linked one) I can see like... stitching errors in a few places from the scanning process. Kind of a bummer. One day I'll spring for something nicer. Should I ask for critique here, or should I edit a couple more and ask in the chill thread? Admiral Bosch fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Feb 1, 2024 |
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:14 |
|
|
I have a V370 as well and it’s………….fine. I don’t have a DSLR with live view, nor do I have a macro lens, so DSLR scanning is out, and a V600 or higher is just really pricey So, I feel you, is what I’m saying
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 03:21
|
|
|
I have a v550 (same hardware as the v600 just different software) and it's also... fine. I don't have a DSLR and have never done a DSLR scan but I'd still 1000x recommend springing for that setup over a new flatbed scanner. I'm sure even older/used DSLRs provide better results than the flatbed scanners whose hardware dates back to 2009. They're slow and finicky and there is always dust to deal with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 14:04
|
|
|
I got a refurbished V850 for 50% off new price. Digital ICE is super convenient over scanning with a camera.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 15:23
|
|
|
I also got a refurb v850 and scanning large format in one pass is super convenient
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 15:34
|
|
|
How do people like digital camera scanning for 35mm? As someone who doesn't own an interchangeable lens digital camera, I like my epson v800 for medium format and I have a plustek 8200i that I've been using for a while for 35mm. The plustek is starting to worry me though, still scanning fine but it's started making some spooky noises when resetting scan position and I'm starting to wonder how much life it's got left. At least 35mm scanning makes more sense to me with a full frame camera if you can go 1:1, doing any sort of stitching for medium format+ sounds frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 18:04
|
|
|
By all measure the V800 is really good, so other than workflow speed, you might not stand to gain much with DSLR scanning
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 19:21
|
|
|
I thought even the V850 was only mediocre for 35mm scans. These folks argue that the V850 delivers ~2300 ppi which yields a 3200x2100 pixel image from a 35mm negative. While I don't know how that compares to a digital camera scan, my gut feeling is that a modern camera with a high quality macro lens should outperform the scanner, especially if the camera has pixel shift. Dust and scratches will be more tricky to deal with than with a scanner that has digital ICE.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 03:59
|
|
|
Yes, a full frame camera will give better resolution for a 35mm negative but not for medium format or larger.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 04:45
|
|
|
I use a full frame mirrorless, macro lens and take one shot for 35mm and two for MF and LF which I then stitch together in lightroom. NLP for negative inversion, works great but it's a bit of a faff to get the setup right whereas a flatbed just works (but probably produces slightly worse results, particularly for smaller formats). Having a super-even light source and eliminating stray light which could flare the lens are pretty critical factors for camera scanning which get overlooked more than other factors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 06:59
|
|
|
I'm really glad to hear all this having just purchased a V600 (still in box). I don't have a good light source for DSLR scanning (or a macro) and the extra steps for getting the images is kind of annoying. I also wanted to be able to scan some of my old prints for which the negatives were ruined, and my multifunction printer can't even get a halfway decent photo scan at 8x10. E: and I have 6x6 negatives to scan, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 13:22
|
|
|
I was hoping this would no longer be an issue after my CLA, and hopefully it'll go away with use and time, but on at least this one shot there's a lighter section from the shutter curtain not being totally synced. Thankfully it's the only one I've noticed from the rolls I've currently shot. My notes say it was shot at 1/500, but the other ones I shot at that speed seem fine. Hopefully just a rare thing. Anyway, my question is - is there a way to color correct just that one section in Lightroom? I am very new and I don't know all the tools at my disposal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 00:45
|
|
|
carticket posted:I'm really glad to hear all this having just purchased a V600 (still in box). I don't have a good light source for DSLR scanning (or a macro) and the extra steps for getting the images is kind of annoying. I also wanted to be able to scan some of my old prints for which the negatives were ruined, and my multifunction printer can't even get a halfway decent photo scan at 8x10. Outstanding choice! I dealt with lab scans for two rolls, which that was enough to convince me that I needed my own scanner, and my Epson has been fantastic. While I did get curious how much an upgrade to a Creo would get me in terms of resolution, I had concluded that the benefit was not with the cost. Though I am still intrigued by analog printing, but I don't have the room for it. The Epson should keep you happy for a while.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 02:28
|
|
|
Admiral Bosch posted:I was hoping this would no longer be an issue after my CLA, and hopefully it'll go away with use and time, but on at least this one shot there's a lighter section from the shutter curtain not being totally synced. Thankfully it's the only one I've noticed from the rolls I've currently shot. My notes say it was shot at 1/500, but the other ones I shot at that speed seem fine. Hopefully just a rare thing. Anyway, my question is - is there a way to color correct just that one section in Lightroom? I am very new and I don't know all the tools at my disposal. Linear Gradient Filter lowering the exposure a slight amount. For subtle things like this you'll probably want to put another filter over it to crank the levels or contrast to 11, which will make the problem very apparent, apply a linear gradient or two to solve the problem, then delete the contrast layer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 05:19
|
|
|
Relevant to the thread. Turns out flash bulbs are wild:Mr.Radar posted:The latest Technology Connections video on flash bulbs is great, he teamed up with the Slow Mo Guys to film them in 200k FPS:
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 05:26
|
|
|
Not a knock on him but i did think the "explosives in a flash???" thing was kind of funny when flash powder existed
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 05:31
|
|
|
Wild that you can order something from Japan and have it show up 6 days later. Just blew through a roll of film. This thing is a joy to use.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 23:06
|
|
|
New gear equals chasing the household around for snapshots. Seems everything is in working order. And, while I was looking for something else, I found a Nikon 24mm f/2.8 D lens that I didn't know I owned.      Got water spots on some of the negatives. Going get some distilled water for the rinsing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 14:18
|
|
|
Got back a roll of Vision3 500t that I pushed one stop. This is really the only one I liked out of the batch, other than a few photos of friends that weren't really for art purposes. This roll was mostly to test shooting handheld at night - there's a rather boisterous wedding I'm headed to and I want to shoot in low exterior light+barroom light while I'm there getting lovely. That experiment seems to have worked, at least. https://www.flickr.com/photos/200029749@N06/shares/49746D4076 edit: okay I kinda like this one too. I'd like to go back at some point and see if the back sides of the silos are also illuminated at the base, I think it'd be a better image without the seating area. Also makes me want to go shoot the abandoned sugar mill in town. 
Admiral Bosch fucked around with this message at 13:26 on Feb 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 02:14
|
|
|
Do 6x9 folding cameras with a ~65 mm lens exist? I am aware of a ton of folders with ~100 mm lenses and a 6x6 with a 75 mm lens, but the only 6x9 with a 65 mm lens is the GSW, and I was curious if there is anything more compact. Edit: They do not. I just developed a roll of Panatomic-X and it has severe case of backing paper imprint. Is it safe to assume the remaining 9 rolls I have (from same seller, with same expiration date) have the same issue? I think I know the answer: Stop buying ~~~expired film~~~ and just use Lomo/Foma when I want film with cHaRaCtEr. theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Feb 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 03:52
|
|
|
Free to a good home. I even cover shipping. First USA/Canada goon to quote me gets the whole lot. Expired Kodak Panatomic-X in 120: bought off ebay, seller claims it was stores properly, I have stored it in a freezer 9 rolls expired Aug 1972, one test roll with the same expiration date shows severe backing paper imprint on at least part of the roll 3 rolls expired May 1971, not tested Kodak BW400CN in 220: I received these for free under the condition that I either use it or pass it on for free. I wanted to use these in a pinhole camera, but I couldn't figure out a safe way to prevent overlapping exposures. 3 rolls expired Nov 2006   theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Feb 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 22:58
|
|
|
 Showed this to my wife and she said, Anya Hindmarch sells expensive bags 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 13:46
|
|
|
spookygonk posted:
Price of film these days smdh
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 21:22
|
|
|
dema posted:New gear equals chasing the household around for snapshots. Seems everything is in working order. Whoa that sharpness owns. Is that 35mm or 120? Did you use a sharpening process?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 00:04
|
|
|
More shots on obsolete gear. First 4 were leica IIIf with voigtlander color skopar 35mm. To be honest, I feel my 90 year old Elmar is sharper when pixel peeping, but in practicality it doesn't matter. Lens does have some heavy vignetting though. Last pic was on a canon 1.4 LTM lens. All photos even the night ones were on Portra, turns out you don't need Cinestill for halation!    
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 00:10
|
|
|
The Clermont Lounge truly is both the best and the worst strip club in the world.lollybo posted:Whoa that sharpness owns. Is that 35mm or 120? Did you use a sharpening process? Thanks! 35mm film. HP5+ at 400. Scanned with a Plustek 8200i. Think it was pretty much auto settings with tweaks to the black, mid and white points.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 01:24
|
|
|
Admiral Bosch posted:Gang. I was thinking about picking up an Ultron 35 aspherical for mine but I decided to upgrade my collapsible soviet 50mm instead. Sorry this is an older post, I just bought a canon 1.4 (one of my above photos was taken with it) after seeing multiple positive reviews. It blocks the finder on the Leica III however, how did you get past that part? I ordered a voigtlander Kontur finder, but it’s hard to get used to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 02:57
|
|
|
Does anyone have any tips for shooting Harman Phoenix? I grabbed a few rolls in December when it released, hoping for an alternative to Aerocolor IV, but it's more unpredictable than I expected. Half the shots have this crazy yellow cast in the lab scans, I don't know if it's something to do with the polarizer, or halating wierd, or just the yellow base, but it varies from frame to frame, even in roughly the same location. Eg: I don't know why this one looks like this  When I shot this 30 seconds later, 50' ahead on the bridge.  I shot it at box speed, out of a Pentax P30t that did fine on the roll of Fuji 400 the day before, so I don't think it's a metering or lens issue. Should I be fixing white balance in post? Is this just the cost of shooting an "Experimental" filmstock? Most of the film I shoot is B&W, and I home dev in Caffenol, so I expect wierdness in that, but most C41 I get back from London Drugs is at least steady from frame to frame.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 10:25
|
|
|
I found that Phoenix 200 really really turns yellow during golden hour - and not in a super great way. I took some golden hour pics that would pop on Gold or ColorPlus get that yellow tint.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 13:42
|
|
|
Do they do it in house or send it out? I expect you're not going to get even vaguely acceptable lab scans without going to a dedicated lab that either already knows the film or with the commercial scanning sheet from Harman in hand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 14:00
|
|
|
big black turnout posted:Do they do it in house or send it out? In-house. I know I was the first roll of Phoenix they processed, too, despite being one of the three main labs for that chain. The employee that came out to chat to me about it said their scans are from some sort of automatic setup, but I know I've gotten great Aerocolor IV scans from them in the past, also a clear base C41 stock. Recoome posted:I found that Phoenix 200 really really turns yellow during golden hour - and not in a super great way. I took some golden hour pics that would pop on Gold or ColorPlus get that yellow tint. Yeah, in retrospect early afternoon in the mountains a week after the solstice was probably a bad choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 15:53
|
|
|
Does anyone have experience here developing 35mm Tri-X with Rodinal? Just looking for general feedback (ie, “don’t do it” if it looks like rear end) and thoughts on dilution, time, agitation, etc. The roll was shot at box speed on an AE-1 with the 50mm 1.8, I’ll be developing in a Paterson developing tank with Ilford fixer. Scanning at home with an 8200i and processing in NLP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 16:40
|
|
|
I don't directly but it looks fine https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Tri-x%20rodinal%2035mm
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 17:56
|
|
|
big black turnout posted:I don't directly but it looks fine https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Tri-x%20rodinal%2035mm These look lovely! Hopefully it works out for me. I think I have some nice exposures on this roll but nothing that I'd be absolutely heartbroken about if I lost the negatives. Normally I'd stick with my trusty D76 but my current batch is almost a year old and it's seemingly harder to find D76 these days. I know there are alternatives but I bought the Rodinal a while back and the sealed bottle is just sitting in my closet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 18:04
|
|
|
Rodinal is fine. I think people get scared off by “increased grain” but it’s not that prominent, especially at 1:50.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 18:27
|
|
|
illcendiary posted:Does anyone have experience here developing 35mm Tri-X with Rodinal? Just looking for general feedback (ie, “don’t do it” if it looks like rear end) and thoughts on dilution, time, agitation, etc. Yes, for quite while that was my default combination until the rolls went from like 7,50 to 13 euro a piece. It works fine, it does make the grain look rougher but the good thing is that it's very foolproof. I preferred 1:25. Best results are at 320 or 250, but i've pushed it to 800 once with acceptable results (shooting at music festivals at night without flash) Definitely try it out, but don't expect any form of smoothness or speed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 18:45
|
|
|
toadee posted:Rodinal is fine. I think people get scared off by “increased grain” but it’s not that prominent, especially at 1:50. It's not increased grain it's increased perceived grain. Rodinal is a non-solvent developer so it develops the silver grains as is while other developers like HC-110 are solvent developers which knock hard edges off the grain. Non-solvent developers increase perceived sharpness and Rodinal at higher dilutions also produces edge effects that can further increase perceived sharpness. Anyway, my general rule of thumb is Rodinal for ISO 100 and slower, HC-110 for things over that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 22:19
|
|
|
I got a bunch of scanned pics taken on tri X dev'd in Rodinal, i'll look for them tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 22:34
|
|
|
Megabound posted:It's not increased grain it's increased perceived grain. Rodinal is a non-solvent developer so it develops the silver grains as is while other developers like HC-110 are solvent developers which knock hard edges off the grain. Non-solvent developers increase perceived sharpness and Rodinal at higher dilutions also produces edge effects that can further increase perceived sharpness. Yes I know, but all people who have never put film in it is "increased grain". And also, there's not much of a difference practically between "increased grain" and "increased perceived grain", since all people tend to want to do with their negatives is perceive them, visually. And, all I was getting at is, in terms of practical results, you aren't likely to care or maybe even notice the effect on one random roll of film - it's more subtle than what discussions might hint at.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:14 |
|
|
I ended up just going for it since I had some spare time this morning. 1+50, 13:00 @ 67F, Ilfostop and Kodafix. Honestly the images look lovely; the ones that don't are because I was a little too optimistic with my perceived lighting (i.e. the indoors ones with artificial lighting at night look kinda crappy). But the ones taken outdoors look good. I'd share except my photos are basically all of my family. I will say, I was a little nervous when I drained the tank of developer and the water was purple. I did not know about that effect with Rodinal (or at least Rodinal + Tri-X) and so I thought I had melted my film or something. I'll probably try again with a roll of HP5 just for kicks given that I have a whole bottle of the stuff and it apparently keeps relatively well. I did notice that B&H had the D76 powder back in stock (that wasn't the case a few weeks back), so I went ahead and ordered some to have on hand just in case. Thanks for the feedback everyone!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 23:13
|
|