|
step 1: scan step 2: open in photoshop, remove dust, hit (CMD|CTRL)+M, enable "show clipping", go through each channel and bring in each one on the upper/low end to the edge of meaningful detail in your photo, save step 3: import to LR and find a whitepoint, if you can't or the lighting is too complex for "just a simple whitepoint" or smth then just gently caress with curves till it feels good step 4: be consistent
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:10 |
|
|
a cyberpunk goose posted:step 1: scan Why wait to find a white point in LR? You can do the same in PS, or do the 50% grey layer trick to find a grey point, if no white or black point exists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:the 50% grey layer trick please elaborate
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm curious as well. Still figuring out my workflow in PS/LR.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Why wait to find a white point in LR? You can do the same in PS, or do the 50% grey layer trick to find a grey point, if no white or black point exists. non destructive edits
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Kodak Medalist status: arrived this evening, is cool as hell
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:please elaborate http://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-editing/neutral-gray/ Basically: Add a new layer Fill 50% grey Change later type to "Difference" Add new adjustment layer "Threshold" Using the adjustment slider for the threshold layer, pull all the way back until the screen is white. Advance slowly until black pixels begin to show. Those first pixels are neutral grey (assuming it exists in your image). Use the color sampler tool to place a marker on one of the black pixels Select and delete the grey layer and the threshold layer. Select the grey color dropper in your layers adjustment panel and use the pixel you marked to set To reiterate, this is for setting your midtones, not your highlights and shadows.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
a cyberpunk goose posted:non destructive edits Photoshop is non-destructive as well, as long as you're working with adjustment layers, and not the base image.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Photoshop is non-destructive as well, as long as you're working with adjustment layers, and not the base image. at that point just do it in LR
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
When it comes down to that, I use LR for sharpening, and the sharpening in LR is time consuming to replicate in PS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:http://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-editing/neutral-gray/ Thanks. In the time between asking and your response I found a video tutorial explaining basically the same steps. Doesn't make sense to me though - if you have an image with an off color cast, then use that trick to find a neutral midtone, wouldn't it be unreliable because you're working with an image that's off to begin with? Like that grey value isn't going to be the actual grey point if the image was correct to begin with. I tested this out by saving two different examples of the same image, one with a cool cast and one with a warm cast. In both examples, the 50% grey point that the threshold layer found were completely different. Also, if you want a grey point to sample for midtones, and you find a perfectly grey point to sample, wouldn't the image stay the same since it's already a perfect grey? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
 Facade by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Mamiya M645 (1000S or not) is a.) Good except the shutter can be unreliable b.) Cheap & prone to failure c.) A piece of poo poo d.) Just fine e.) Durable and robust f.) Generally ok for slide film, even g.) 645 lol (Choose all that apply) I want something that is small but also MF, not as expensive as an MF RF, can use my Pentacon Six lenses, and has quality accessible wide-angle lenses. Would also be great if it had a reliable shutter that didn't give me weird exposure on the edges like my Kiev-60. That thing is fine for portraits & such but I am envisioning something that I can take on long hikes and shoot Velvia landscapes with. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Jun 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
h) not worth the size increase over 35mm cameras when you could have a 6x7 camera How much do you have invested in Pentacon Six lenses that you need to be able to use them on whatever camera you get?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Just buy a Pentacon Six?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
The only reason to shoot 645 is to use the Contax 645 with the 80/2 lens, otherwise just go larger. As the saying goes, friends don't let friends shoot 645!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Med format RFs don't have to be super expensive btw. Take a look at the Koni omega I'm selling in the buy thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
I do like the look of the Bronica RF645, but its 645
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
The Mir-26B is a really nice P6 wide angle. 45mm f/3.5. You can get them multicoated too. I got a Kiev-60 back from CLA at Arax and it's night and day over what it was. I bought it boxed at a flea-market in Kiev. The sticker price was ~$250 but the lens was full of fungus and the shutter advance didn't engage properly so I got it for $75 eventually. Boxed, with all the accessories still wrapped in their plastic bags. Never used and built in 1990. I handed it over to the dude from Arax just before I left Kyiv and it ended up costing me $110 for a CLA on both body and lens, a new lens collar that makes it compatible with the Kiev mount adapter and shipping to me in Slovakia. Now it's basically the camera it should have been when it was built.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Does the lol 645 principle still hold up for optical printing? I get where it comes from. I've definitely found good high-resolution digitizations of 35mm negs to come pretty close to some 3:2 crops of my 6x6 photos. I think different scanning methods influence my results though. My old boss blew up some landscapes he shot on 35mm Ektachrome to ~36x24 and while pretty nice i would probably want to go MF to make similar-sized prints. Actually printing and displaying stuff is where I want to go. It's why I've felt restricted by the Kiev. It works fine when you can touch up stuff in Photoshop. I don't have a lot invested in p6 lenses but I really like what I've got. P6 bodies are just a little big for my intended application. Arax-kiev 88CM is tempting but their upgraded shutter model, which is what I'd have to go for, is pricy. I guess gsw690 would be another to consider. Interchangeable lenses wouldn't be a concern there. And is optical printing still done anywhere today outside of private and academic darkrooms? My local 'film-centric' camera shop only prints from scans. I used to do my own b&w prints in my school's darkroom but for color especially I would be fine with getting optical prints made by a lab. Edit: but is there really any appreciable qualitative difference in digital vs optical enlargements of color negatives? Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree... unless I set up my own b&w printing darkroom. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Jun 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
You can probably get drum scans done for less than it would cost to do optical prints, if your flatbed isn't getting enough resolution. Then you'd be free to do whatever printing process you want. Lightjet/Lambda printers go straight onto photo paper.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:And is optical printing still done anywhere today outside of private and academic darkrooms? My local 'film-centric' camera shop only prints from scans. I used to do my own b&w prints in my school's darkroom but for color especially I would be fine with getting optical prints made by a lab. I don't think there's any commercial lab out there that has the volume to sustain a optical workflow and darkroom.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
I get way better scans out of my 645 negatives than 35mm just because 120 film sits way flatter and doesn't bow lengthwise down the entire strip of film the way 35mm does. I actually get pretty close to the same usable resolution as my 16MP D7000 when I scan them at 2400 dpi. It's totally good and usable but I do understand the sentiment that if you are gonna be shooting MF you might as well go big.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Arax-kiev 88CM is tempting but their upgraded shutter model, which is what I'd have to go for, is pricy. I bought an Arax 88CM-MLU. The shutter upgrade was a no-cost option. You just pick one of the packages, tell them you want the new shutter and they build it for you that way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 10:10
|
|
|
ape posted:Just buy a Pentacon Six? Getting my P6 (with 80mm & 50mm lenses) out of the cupboard for July. Hasn't been used since I got it serviced (yeah, I'm a bad person).
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
I don't understand all the hate for 645. The most often mention thing is that it's not a big enough increase in negative size over 35mm. But the size increase going from 35mm to 645 is bigger than going from 6x7 to 4x5. Nobody ever tells people coming from MF to skip 4x5 and go straight to 8x10.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
I guess why would you upgrade to 645 when it would be roughly comparable in price to do the other better thing
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
That's a good reason. But lots of people make it solely about the negative size.
That70sShirt fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Jun 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
shoot 4x5
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
a cyberpunk goose posted:shoot 4x5 the objectively correct answer right here
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
That70sShirt posted:Nobody ever tells people coming from MF to skip 4x5 and go straight to 8x10. If costs were equal, you should go straight to 8x10!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
That70sShirt posted:Nobody ever tells people coming from MF to skip 4x5 and go straight to 8x10. Missed this, so I'll respond now - the reason not to go from 4x5 to 8x10 is because 8x10 and larger are actually significantly harder to scan, if that's what you're after. I would have no reservations suggesting going straight to 8x10 if contact printing or alt processes were the goal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
That70sShirt posted:I don't understand all the hate for 645. The most often mention thing is that it's not a big enough increase in negative size over 35mm. But the size increase going from 35mm to 645 is bigger than going from 6x7 to 4x5. 645 negs require all the same infrastructure to shoot 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9. It takes roughly about the same amount of time to scan a 645 neg as it does to scan a much larger one. I get 645 for a few edge cases like the Fuji P&S cameras, autofocus, or maybe the mamiya 80mm f/1.9 (it's not as good as it sounds) but most of the time you are getting all the downsides of MF with the smallest possible neg size. 8x10 is not comparable because it's crazy expensive and huge, my 8x10 set up is orders of magnitude heavier than my 4x5 set up ever was.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
shoot 4x5
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
gently caress it shoot photos on your phone
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
 cowboy church by Max Piepenbrink, on Flickr having a hard time with colors lately a cyberpunk goose fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Jun 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
So if I let go of the P6 adaptability requirement, and also say gently caress it to 645 and 6x6 (because I want to shoot wide and whats the point if I'm cropping 6x6 to 3:2-2.25 or wider), then what's the light and/or cheap(er) option that still has a some reputation for reliability? Does such a thing exist? RB 67? The Pentax seems like a beast. Guessing maybe the Fuji is probably the closest I can get to ticking all the boxes. This seems like a pretty good deal, actually. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Jun 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
RB67 has two different actions for shutter and film advance. In case that would bother you. I know it would bother me. Find a P67.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:So if I let go of the P6 adaptability requirement, and also say gently caress it to 645 and 6x6 (because I want to shoot wide and whats the point if I'm cropping 6x6 to 3:2-2.25 or wider), then what's the light and/or cheap(er) option that still has a some reputation for reliability? Does such a thing exist? RB 67? The Pentax seems like a beast. Guessing maybe the Fuji is probably the closest I can get to ticking all the boxes. Get a Pentax 6x7 with a 45 or 55mm lens
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:10 |
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:So if I let go of the P6 adaptability requirement, and also say gently caress it to 645 and 6x6 (because I want to shoot wide and whats the point if I'm cropping 6x6 to 3:2-2.25 or wider), then what's the light and/or cheap(er) option that still has a some reputation for reliability? Does such a thing exist? RB 67? The Pentax seems like a beast. Guessing maybe the Fuji is probably the closest I can get to ticking all the boxes. Self promoting again here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3759085&pagenumber=10#post461335351
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 05:13
|
|