|
Helicity posted:For some reason I can't find many people comparing Portra 160 and Provia 100F and I'm pretty much a novice when it comes to color films. I think the most important things to me are not losing details in shadows and preserving huge dynamic ranges, so what are my options? It sounds like Velvia is out. One is reverse color, one is color poz. Slide film can be a poor choice for some scenes. As Ansel states, shoot Portra 400, give no fucks.
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 08:57 |
|
|
The Portra 400 will be considerably more grainy though, right? This is 6x9 that will be printed at nearly poster size. Is that the tradeoff I have - grain vs dr/detail? I'm trying to figure out all the tradeoffs without shooting a few dozen rolls, which is admittedly a shortcut, but if I could at least get somewhere close to where I want to be...
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
No. Portra 160's grain is almost indistinguishable from 400. 160 is mostly useful if you need to continue overexposing (could probably get away rating it at ISO 32), not for grain size.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Alright, I've got the Portra 400 already so I'll give that a try. A lot of the shots are going to be like this (not mine): What I've struggled with when shooting digital is: 1) under-exposing so that I don't blow my highlights 2) over-exposing so that I don't lose detail in the shadows of the clouds 3) god awful color noise when bumping contrast The answer then was to bracket exposures and merge manually. Any other tips on how to be successful doing this with my GW690? Also something of a tangent - what is landscape photography's obsession with slide film? Everywhere I look for examples of medium format landscape is riddled with Velvia and Provia. Is it because those were the only ways to get that high contrast/saturation look before scanners and digital post really took off, or some other reason? luchadornado fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
My dad told me he was bringing up his old film camera this weekend when he visited. I didn't remember it and assumed it was some old russian piece of junk but it's actually and OM10. He probably picked it up in the late 80s, hasn't shot it since Hale-Bopp in 1997, but the batteries apparently still work. Pumped.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Another one bites the dust. Until last year I could always pick up some BW400CN at my local drugstore but I don't remember when I last saw it on a shelf in the US.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Helicity posted:What I've struggled with when shooting digital is:  Portra 400's characteristic curves. Notice the right top - the linear slope - that's how the film handles highlights. Most other film stocks and sensors have a rolling 'shoulder' in that area and cut off sooner, which puts you at risk of losing your highlights, and that's why you're able to overexpose Portra by several stops before noticing any actual issues. Color noise should only be an issue if you underexpose and have a thin negative - scanners introduce a lot of noise in not-dense areas. The bigger risk with Portra isn't blowing out detail on the negative itself but rather making the negative too dense for a scanner to handle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
RustedChrome posted:Another one bites the dust. I do remember seeing it in Boots last year in Scotland, but I haven't seen it since. I always go for XP2 if I want a B+W c41 film though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:The bigger risk with Portra isn't blowing out detail on the negative itself but rather making the negative too dense for a scanner to handle. Which would be overexposing, right? So if I want to make sure my cloud shadows and foreground (which is almost always darker than the sky in my shots) retain detail, expose for those, and I'll be good. I'm probably going to have some place process rolls for me at first, do I need to tell them anything? Tell them to expose it as if its 160? Am I metering for that any differently? If anyone has any links that do a good job of going through this stuff, it'd be greatly appreciated because I thought I knew photography and I'm feeling lost with film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:No. Portra 160's grain is almost indistinguishable from 400. 160 is mostly useful if you need to continue overexposing (could probably get away rating it at ISO 32), not for grain size. 160 always seemed like its colors were slightly different than 400 to me but I might just be crazy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Yeah, this is interesting. Should I just be underexposing everything 2/3 to 1 stop and bringing it back up in post to get the best results from film? Or is this just portra? Or am I misunderstanding the conversation entirely?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Probably isn't the best thread for this question, but I like this thread so I'll ask it here. I'll be hanging some of my photos up in a local ice cream shop soon. I've never had an exhibition before, so I've never had any reason to print photos. Would it work to just have Walgreens print my scans, or would that be really tacky? What would YOU do?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Yeah, this is interesting. Should I just be underexposing everything 2/3 to 1 stop and bringing it back up in post to get the best results from film? Or is this just portra? Overexposing, don't underexpose print film
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:Probably isn't the best thread for this question, but I like this thread so I'll ask it here. I'll be hanging some of my photos up in a local ice cream shop soon. I've never had an exhibition before, so I've never had any reason to print photos. Would it work to just have Walgreens print my scans, or would that be really tacky? What would YOU do? Go to a nice lab that can make you nice prints
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:Probably isn't the best thread for this question, but I like this thread so I'll ask it here. I'll be hanging some of my photos up in a local ice cream shop soon. I've never had an exhibition before, so I've never had any reason to print photos. Would it work to just have Walgreens print my scans, or would that be really tacky? What would YOU do? Find a good lab that will give you icc profiles to color match on your calibrated monitor. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Found a good lab...but $15 for a single 8x8 is too expensive (plus the cost of 8 frames...yikes)  . I think I might just have to go tacky on this one. Lesson learned, shoulda done my homework first.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:Found a good lab...but $15 for a single 8x8 is too expensive (plus the cost of 8 frames...yikes) Well in theory you want a nice output for your art.. What's the point of hanging so-so prints? Maybe you could just print three or four?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Overexposing, don't underexpose print film If you are selling? Nice lab. If it's just display, do whatever. I alway choose a nice lab except when I don't. Musket fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
If you have a costco account, their prints are pretty cheap and a nice step up from walgreens. Depending on the staff you can get ICC profiles. This only applies to printing from a digital file, not film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:Found a good lab...but $15 for a single 8x8 is too expensive (plus the cost of 8 frames...yikes) Order prints from WHCC and get the cheapest frames you can find on amazon. The only actual expensive bit will be the mats and you could just cut your own.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:If you want shadow detail and dynamic range just shoot Portra 400 at 160. Slides are not a wise choice. Just out of curiosity would you develop it as normal or underdevelop by 1.5 stops?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:Just out of curiosity would you develop it as normal or underdevelop by 1.5 stops? Develop as normal. Portra has it's own magic and doesn't need primitive zone system voodoo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Develop as normal. Portra has it's own magic and doesn't need primitive zone system voodoo. So the voodoo is imbedded in the film, got it. I shall have to buy several rolls of porta and try this voodoo out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Order prints from WHCC and get the cheapest frames you can find on amazon. The only actual expensive bit will be the mats and you could just cut your own. Thanks for the input, everyone. This is a good suggestion here, the prices are even better than Walgreens. Does anyone have experience with mounted prints on this website? Would be cheaper to get some kind of mounting through them than to buy frames. I hadn't thought much about selling, but I think what I'll do is put up a sign that directs people to my website where they will be able to order prints. When I uh, finish making it. I don't actually expect to sell anything though. LargeHadron fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:It's probably going to be weeks before I get all the stuff to develop at home. Received this yesterday, will try to shoot it today and maybe even get around to develop it. Say, how much film was actually wound up on this? 5 exposures or 37? Edit: Yeah ok it's not cine sprocket holes. nielsm fucked around with this message at 08:15 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:It's probably going to be weeks before I get all the stuff to develop at home. Dude you loaded that poo poo the wrong way. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Dude you loaded that poo poo the wrong way. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 10:35
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Dude you loaded that poo poo the wrong way. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 11:14
|
|
|
nm
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 11:48
|
|
|
The middle AF sensor on my F100 misses about half of the time, and it just gives up entirely sometimes. It seems be worse on distant subjects with long focal lengths, but it still has trouble on shorter focal lengths too. I've tested it with 3 different lenses that all work fine on my DSLR so it's not the lenses. I tried cleaning the AF sensors below the mirror, but it hasn't seemed to help. Is it possible that one AF sensor has been knocked out of alignment, but the other 4 (top, right, bottom and left) all work fine?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:Thanks for the input, everyone. This is a good suggestion here, the prices are even better than Walgreens. Does anyone have experience with mounted prints on this website? Would be cheaper to get some kind of mounting through them than to buy frames. I've never sold a picture, so take this as random inexperienced advice. I think you should be ready to sell a print on the off chance somebody wants to buy one. A casual but interested buyer, the kind of person I imagine would want to buy a print they see hanging on the wall of the coffee shop, will be turned off by any excuses about delays or incomplete websites. You're planning to be able to sell prints anyway (from what I'm reading between the lines) so you might as well be ready to do that from day 1. Put suggested prices near the prints (on a little sign that says "any print $XXX, go to wwww.mywebsiteiscrappy.com") EDIT: Get a QR code, all the cool kids are doing it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
So Bushwick Community Darkroom is loving terrible, CRC is too expensive. What other decent labs are there in NYC? RIP Manhattan Color y'all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Dude you loaded that poo poo the wrong way. I actually wound it right the first time and was like "nope, lets try again" What a dumbass sorry e: there are 2 or 3 ft worth of film unpacked robinhood fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Just checked into an airbnb in Reykjavik. Host has a pentax ME. Think I'm gonna be in good hands here (also, which one of you is it).
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:So Bushwick Community Darkroom is loving terrible, CRC is too expensive. What other decent labs are there in NYC? RIP Manhattan Color y'all. i switched to LTI and i haven't looked back. great service and they also have the student discount. http://www.lti-lightside.com/
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
nm posted:Just checked into an airbnb in Reykjavik. Host has a pentax ME. Think I'm gonna be in good hands here (also, which one of you is it). Poopinmymouth has a rental there and I wouldn't be surprised if he has an ME.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
If humans are involved and I am shooting color, I see absolutely no reason to ever shoot anything but Portra. Untitled by Dev Luns, on Flickr Untitled by Dev Luns, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
nm posted:Just checked into an airbnb in Reykjavik. Host has a pentax ME. Think I'm gonna be in good hands here (also, which one of you is it). cowabunga, broham. Genderfluid posted:i switched to LTI and i haven't looked back. great service and they also have the student discount. http://www.lti-lightside.com/ Thanks for this. My experience at Bushwick Community Darkroom was terrible in every single way. I almost am tempted to write a snarky Yelp review.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:
owns
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 08:57 |
|
|
yeah nice portra(it) bra
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 07:00
|
|
