Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-22-2016, 12:28 AM   #16
Site Supporter
chickentender's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,863
QuoteOriginally posted by Silent Street Quote

Scanning can be said to be an art form that takes a while to master.
^This^
Don't lose heart. It takes quite a while to get the hang of it all. It pays off.

---------- Post added 07-22-16 at 12:36 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by IgorZ Quote
Thank you! I really enjoy the 645, but man is it heavy. I can't imagine the 67...
It has never really felt any heavier to me. The 67 is certainly heavier with the TTL metered prism and a larger lens but their "dry" so-to-speak weights are actually nearly identical. I don't have any 645 glass any longer and just use my 67 glass on the 645Nii with adapter, so the weights are pretty much the same. I like the handling of the 67 better so the slight more heft is pretty much offset by that fact. They actually work very well together.


Last edited by chickentender; 07-22-2016 at 12:37 AM.
07-22-2016, 01:33 AM   #17
Site Supporter
chickentender's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,863
QuoteOriginally posted by IgorZ Quote
Just got back to film after a decade of shooting digital, so will have to look up "monochromatic chromogenic" Thanks for the suggestion. Is it grainy? I was using Soviet film when I started shooting as a kid, and a 400 speed film was very grainy. I think I am biased for life...
I know what you mean here. My early experiences (e.g. 20 - 30 years ago) with faster film was the same. I returned to film about 5 years ago after more than a decade of digital, and for the past 2 1/2 years I've hardly picked up my digital bodies any more, except for occasional paid work that really requires a super fast turnaround or verifiable results.

Faster films at first were a disappointment but I largely have learned that most of them that I shot back in the day, I shot poorly and underexposed. These days some of my favorite films are faster color-neg films, but I over expose the a stop or two and they come alive. Also as I've printed again I've remember how wonderful the grain can look on a printed image - the same image with heavy grain, can look utterly lifeless and cluttered on the screen, but on paper it is gorgeous and alive. Much of my bias toward grain was coming from that decade of noisy digital images and everything we did as photogs to avoid it. Not true with film.

I've been shooting a great deal of Svema Color 125 - not a fast film but certainly and older, grainier Soviet look to it. I love it.

Also remember, now that you're shooting medium format - nearly any emulsion you choose will show far less of its grain structure for a given image on MF than it will on 35mm, so some of your bias can be calmed in that way - shoot bigger film.
07-24-2016, 11:44 AM   #18
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Walnut Creek, California
Posts: 23
I have attached an images taken with my Hasselblad 500 C/M. Ilford FP4+ developed in Divided D-23 for four minutes minutes in Bath's A and B. Scanned as 16 Bit RGB TIFF with my Epson 700. For digital printing converted to gray scale in Photoshop and printed with Quadtone RIP. Prints great with detail in both shadows and highlights. This was quite a high contrast scene between the deep shadows and the sun falling on the ivy leaves.


Cheers


Mike
Attached Images
 
07-26-2016, 01:14 PM   #19
Veteran Member
IgorZ's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 549
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by chickentender Quote
I know what you mean here. My early experiences (e.g. 20 - 30 years ago) with faster film was the same. I returned to film about 5 years ago after more than a decade of digital, and for the past 2 1/2 years I've hardly picked up my digital bodies any more, except for occasional paid work that really requires a super fast turnaround or verifiable results.

Faster films at first were a disappointment but I largely have learned that most of them that I shot back in the day, I shot poorly and underexposed. These days some of my favorite films are faster color-neg films, but I over expose the a stop or two and they come alive. Also as I've printed again I've remember how wonderful the grain can look on a printed image - the same image with heavy grain, can look utterly lifeless and cluttered on the screen, but on paper it is gorgeous and alive. Much of my bias toward grain was coming from that decade of noisy digital images and everything we did as photogs to avoid it. Not true with film.

I've been shooting a great deal of Svema Color 125 - not a fast film but certainly and older, grainier Soviet look to it. I love it.

Also remember, now that you're shooting medium format - nearly any emulsion you choose will show far less of its grain structure for a given image on MF than it will on 35mm, so some of your bias can be calmed in that way - shoot bigger film.
Ah, Svema... Brings back memories... I can't remember shooting colour film back when I was a kid. Actually, come to think of it, I am not even sure how people used to process it. It was certainly an exception - black and white or slide film was the norm. You certainly couldn't drop it off in your local Walmart... We used to print our own in the washroom - turn - darkroom. Good old days...

I am about to develop my second roll of MF film. Also Acros 100. A few images from the first roll were out of focus - never had a chance to shoot with split prism focusing screen, so had to learn that. So I don't know if it's a novelty thing, but I've been looking at my MF photos much more than my other photos. I typically don't look at them, unless I print them. These MF just look so much better, and I don't know what it is. Certainly, my skills have not improved, it's not like Cartier- Bresson took them. Any ideas?

---------- Post added 07-26-16 at 01:17 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by MikeKPhoto Quote
I have attached an images taken with my Hasselblad 500 C/M. Ilford FP4+ developed in Divided D-23 for four minutes minutes in Bath's A and B. Scanned as 16 Bit RGB TIFF with my Epson 700. For digital printing converted to gray scale in Photoshop and printed with Quadtone RIP. Prints great with detail in both shadows and highlights. This was quite a high contrast scene between the deep shadows and the sun falling on the ivy leaves.


Cheers


Mike
Hello Mike,

Thanks a lot, looks beautiful. A friend of mine saw me shoot film and decided to get into film photography - that's going from no photography to film photography. After a roll or two he decided to start developing his film. He keeps nudging me in that direction as well, so I might start experimenting with film processing. Kind of scary - not like you can go back and start over if you mess up...

08-21-2016, 12:19 PM   #20
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Northants, England
Posts: 97
I know nothing of scanning and scanners but key to film photography is the "look" of the negative. If the highlights are very black on the neg then they will be burnt out(excessively white and lacking in detail on the print i.e. if there is no detail on the neg in that area there will be no detail possible in the print. Likewise with shadow detail.

Have a close look at the neg. Can you see detail in both the highlights and the shadows? if you can then the print should be capable of showing a full range of tones from such a negative.

If there is little or no details in the highlights it suggests an overexposed or overdeveloped negative. If this is a case of overexposure then it will be combined with shadows that are too light on a print as there will also be too much exposure there on the negative as well. If the shadows are very light, almost transparent on the negative then the shadows on the print will lack detail and no amount of scanning skills will produce detail. What is missing on the negative cannot be conjured up on the print. The answer there is more exposure on the negative to increase shadow details.

The trouble is that unless the scan of the print accurately replicates the negative, the scan can be misleading in terms of indicating the negative's faults

Try getting a silver gelatin( darkroom print) of the negative from a lab when it will be easier to work out what the negative's problems are, if any.

As others have said, I too have never experienced such contrast with Acros negs. If you know your camera's meter to be accurate then I suspect that the negative will be capable of producing a much better print that the one shown.

As a film user the three books by Ansel Adams( "The Camera", "The Negative", "The Print") are worth reading, especially "The Negative"

Best of luck with getting the bottom of the problem.

asahijock
08-29-2016, 12:56 PM   #21
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 292
QuoteOriginally posted by IgorZ Quote
You are right, I have a lot to learn when it comes to scanning. Just tried scanning a roll of Portra and it looks outright weird. Read something about having to tweak the colours later, now I can see why...
Portra 400 is specifically designed for a hybrid-digital workflow. It's very low-contrast on film so it's easy to scan, then you push the contrast digitally.

Make sure when you scan that you pull the black and white points all the way to the edge of the exposed range on the film, and then adjust the grey point somewhere reasonable. Again, this will make your scan very flat, but importantly it contains all the information from the negative. You can boost contrast in post-processing.

One caveat is that if there is a blown-out region that's widely separated from a particularly important tonal region of your photo you may actually want to pull the grey point slightly towards the main region rather than towards what makes the scan look good right away. Each pixel only has a certain number of shades that can be displayed, and it's not good to crush that tonal space down. In extreme cases you may want to scan twice - once for the highlights, once for the main image - and digitally mask them together.

If you adjust the white/black points on color film do realize that you are actually adjusting three separate curves at the same time here (R,G,B). With some films the exposure shoulders are not in quite exactly the same place, so the highlights might go yellow (for example). You can adjust this by pulling the white point for just the blue curve in a little bit.

For your example, if "everything" (midtones) looks green, then adjust the grey point for the green channel.

You probably won't get it perfect at first but you can bring it a lot closer and get it right in Lightroom.

Also, consider getting a colorimeter at some point. Different types of screens have different coloration (TN tends to be greenish) and they change as they age and the backlights wear. Without calibration you have no idea what it actually will look like in print or on anyone else's screen. You can buy a color-calibrated IPS panel from Dell (P-series) and they will be pretty accurate, but they do drift as they age.

As for developing, nowadays I mostly use Rodinal - it's a "one-shot" so you don't need to worry about feeding your developer, and it lasts forever (unopened cans from 1920 are still good). Use it 1:100 stand developed for one hour for a universal "develops anything" formula - it looks very good with Acros. Many films can also be developed 1:50 for a shorter time. Consult the DigitalTruth online dev charts.

If you are getting B+W developed from a lab you will have very little control over your results, and probably poor quality to boot. It's very easy to develop B+W at home.

Last edited by Paul MaudDib; 08-29-2016 at 01:02 PM.
09-01-2016, 09:49 AM   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,929
For clarification, the original Rodinal is not available anymore. You have to get R09 version of the Rodinal formula or the Adox Rodinal remake. And, according to the original Rodinal instructions, it was advertised for only a 6-month shelf life after opening.

Evidence shows that it is good for a long time but there is no documentation from the original manufacture that says it lasts forever as far as I can tell. Another developer that is one-shot and has an advertised 10-year shelf life is PMK Pyro. This developer works well for highlight compression work ( getting more dynamic range out of your BW film than normal developing does). And HC110 can be use much like a one-shot developer and it too has a very long shelf life as well.

As for scanning, you can adjust your contrast curve in the scanning software or you can do it afterwards in post in your image editor. For adjusting the contrast curve in post, scan in 16-bit BW ( 48-bit for color) in the ProPhoto color space for maximum adjustment latitude and scan by histogram to grab all the density off the negative the scanner will do without much regard to how flat it may look in the scan. If you edit in, say, Lightroom, it works in the ProPhoto color space anyway. And as long as you exposed for the shadow detail you wanted, you should get a really good tonal scale in your end results.

Last edited by tuco; 09-01-2016 at 10:18 AM.
09-01-2016, 06:59 PM   #23
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Walnut Creek, California
Posts: 23
As asahijock has mentioned a "good" negative is key. One of the most common problems people encounter when starting off developing film is over developing and over agitating and the combination of both is going to result high contrast and blocked negatives. The key to a good negative is a good black, with details in the important shadow areas and detail in highlight areas. Over development and excessive agitation will impact the highlights. For scanning, as I mentioned above, I find that dilute low contrast developers and two solution developers work best. A dilute developer will exhaust itself in the highlights while continuing to develop in the shadow areas.

Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
645d, 645z, camera, conditions, contrast, detail, film, filters, glass, grass, ilford, level, light, lot, medium format, mf, neopan, phil, photos, portra, roll, roll of mf, scan, settings, software, thanks
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
First roll of film in decades! swamp boy Pentax Film SLR Discussion 3 12-14-2014 11:30 AM
First roll of film... splash_fr Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 3 05-12-2013 08:19 AM
Help, first roll of film Tom.Hawthorne Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 22 01-22-2012 03:12 PM
Cityscape First Roll Of Film rparmar Post Your Photos! 10 10-06-2009 04:46 AM
First roll of film since 199?... heliphoto Pentax Film SLR Discussion 18 02-07-2009 10:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:32 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top