Best 120/220 film for scanning

**Ron Boggs** · 07-13-2009, 10:01 AM

Just for examples of sun in the frame...the two shots were made with a Hassy XPanII (I put these in just for K100d who covets that camera). Because this camera is a rangefinder, I can't use neutral density grads to help with "hot sky" issues. The sky and sun vs foreground issues are handled just with exposure. The darker frame was probably exposed at -.5 exposure compensation from the center weighted meter reading. The lighter frame was likely shot straight up at the meter reading (if I'm wrong then the darker one was at -1 and the lighter one at -.5, but because of the bright sky I'm pretty sure the first figures are accurate). The film is Velvia 50 slide film and these are just low res "raw" scans, meaning no post processing or sharpening--just scan and resize, I even left the dust on 'em for ya! Note that to me, the richer sky colors in the darker version are prefereable to the brighter version with some detail retained in the rocks--though I really prefer the sun rays as in the lighter version...Hard to believe there was no bump in saturation in either scan...these are "as shot."

The point of these two frames is to show how even the most contrasty slide film like Velvia can still render nice shots with the bright sun in the frame, and do so without neutral density grads. I'm a "pop the color" guy, so don't know how these would look with a more neutral emulsion--though I did capture this same image in normal daylight on other emulsions--not worth showing...

Attached Images

Last edited by Ron Boggs; 07-13-2009 at 10:15 AM.

DigitalSlide · 07-13-2009, 10:38 AM

Great examples of what Velvia is good for, Ron.

In the scene you exemplify, most likely I would not use a ND grad, yet I really like the second shot better. Maybe I would try a non-grad ND to show some slow motion in the water. Curious what the exposure time with a 2-stop non-graduated ND could get, somwhere around F22 or so.

k100d · 07-13-2009, 02:58 PM

i hate you ron! you know i read all your film posts and you flaunt those panoramas everytime. and it's not a normal XPAN but a II, so jealous

anyways nice photos and good advice

**Ron Boggs** · 07-13-2009, 04:18 PM

Yes K100d, I do everything I can to get you to jump on the Hassy Pano bandwagon! I'm still primarily a Pentax 67II kind of guy, but the little rangefinder takes up next to no space in my kit...sooooooo

Interesting idea to add a neutral density filter for slower shutter speed...Because there is no close foreground, I probably shot at f16 or possibly f11 to get into the lens' sweet spot (I typically shoot at either f16 or f11 for landscapes without a close foreground...f22 with a foreground). Though you can't tell by the apparently stop-action waves, the shutter speed was somewhere between half second and 2 seconds, definitely not fast, but still nowhere near slow enough to blur out the wave motion...note that the longer distance you are from a "moving target" the slower you have to go to actually blur the motion. Since I was more than 100 meters from the surf--maybe even 200 meters or more, even a slow shutter speed still stops motion. The opposite is true for sports-type photography, when you are close to the subject, you really need to speed up the shutter or you'll get motion blur.

That may not make sense at first--hell, something moving during the shutter timing is something moving during the shutter timing right? Actually, it has something to do with the amount of the frame that is covered by the motion during the shutter duration. At a distance, the waves only move a tiny fraction of the frame during a half second through 2 second exposure. If you still doubt, use the "sunny 16" math for 50 asa film and way darker than sunny conditions and you see that my memory of shutter speed is pretty close--plus I've shot a few bizzillion cliche sunsets before. the waves really are blurry, just not cotton candy blurry...

DigitalSlide · 07-13-2009, 06:57 PM

Ron, that makes perfect sense. My idea was, although it may not work as well with such a beautifully saturated sunset, to have a silky smooth scene which will probably mean 20s or more exposure. I should try it sometime and see what happens.

**Ron Boggs** · 07-14-2009, 08:13 AM

I'm certain your idea would work, but you would need to be closer to the surf. Typically, when you see surf rendered "creamy smooth" it's as the foreground with the photographer apparently doing "wet feet" photography. The distance issue mentioned previously would force the waves into the foreground to "silk" them up.

I have a shooting buddy who whips out the 2 stop ND on a regular basis. I've shot most everything but waves with him over the years, but his approach would likely mirror your idea. When water is involved, he's almost always got that 2 stop on. Wouldn't surprise me to catch him with the 2 stop when served a glass of water with his meal.

DigitalSlide · 07-14-2009, 08:53 AM

Speaking of 2 stop ND: while shooting my first 120 film I made use of it due to 1/1000s limit on 645N. That was in bright light and at around F3.5 I was still getting a 1/500. The film was a 160C yet to develop. I hope I got the focus right otherwise the shallow DOF will kill the shots (portraits at close range).

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax 645N - 120 film in 220 magazine ?	Matus	Pentax Medium Format	63	03-15-2019 05:29 PM
Does Two 120 = 220?	icywarm	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	13	11-18-2010 03:27 PM
Tri-x (320) being discontinued in 120/220	Clicker	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	2	02-27-2010 09:33 PM
Recommendation for scanner for 35mm and MF with 120/220	hinman	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	26	02-12-2010 12:24 PM

07-13-2009, 10:01 AM	#16
Ron Boggs Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: MT Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,349	Just for examples of sun in the frame...the two shots were made with a Hassy XPanII (I put these in just for K100d who covets that camera). Because this camera is a rangefinder, I can't use neutral density grads to help with "hot sky" issues. The sky and sun vs foreground issues are handled just with exposure. The darker frame was probably exposed at -.5 exposure compensation from the center weighted meter reading. The lighter frame was likely shot straight up at the meter reading (if I'm wrong then the darker one was at -1 and the lighter one at -.5, but because of the bright sky I'm pretty sure the first figures are accurate). The film is Velvia 50 slide film and these are just low res "raw" scans, meaning no post processing or sharpening--just scan and resize, I even left the dust on 'em for ya! Note that to me, the richer sky colors in the darker version are prefereable to the brighter version with some detail retained in the rocks--though I really prefer the sun rays as in the lighter version...Hard to believe there was no bump in saturation in either scan...these are "as shot." The point of these two frames is to show how even the most contrasty slide film like Velvia can still render nice shots with the bright sun in the frame, and do so without neutral density grads. I'm a "pop the color" guy, so don't know how these would look with a more neutral emulsion--though I did capture this same image in normal daylight on other emulsions--not worth showing... Attached Images Last edited by Ron Boggs; 07-13-2009 at 10:15 AM.

07-13-2009, 10:38 AM	#17
DigitalSlide Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: US Posts: 30 Original Poster	Great examples of what Velvia is good for, Ron. In the scene you exemplify, most likely I would not use a ND grad, yet I really like the second shot better. Maybe I would try a non-grad ND to show some slow motion in the water. Curious what the exposure time with a 2-stop non-graduated ND could get, somwhere around F22 or so.

07-13-2009, 02:58 PM	#18
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	i hate you ron! you know i read all your film posts and you flaunt those panoramas everytime. and it's not a normal XPAN but a II, so jealous anyways nice photos and good advice

07-13-2009, 04:18 PM	#19
Ron Boggs Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: MT Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,349	Yes K100d, I do everything I can to get you to jump on the Hassy Pano bandwagon! I'm still primarily a Pentax 67II kind of guy, but the little rangefinder takes up next to no space in my kit...sooooooo Interesting idea to add a neutral density filter for slower shutter speed...Because there is no close foreground, I probably shot at f16 or possibly f11 to get into the lens' sweet spot (I typically shoot at either f16 or f11 for landscapes without a close foreground...f22 with a foreground). Though you can't tell by the apparently stop-action waves, the shutter speed was somewhere between half second and 2 seconds, definitely not fast, but still nowhere near slow enough to blur out the wave motion...note that the longer distance you are from a "moving target" the slower you have to go to actually blur the motion. Since I was more than 100 meters from the surf--maybe even 200 meters or more, even a slow shutter speed still stops motion. The opposite is true for sports-type photography, when you are close to the subject, you really need to speed up the shutter or you'll get motion blur. That may not make sense at first--hell, something moving during the shutter timing is something moving during the shutter timing right? Actually, it has something to do with the amount of the frame that is covered by the motion during the shutter duration. At a distance, the waves only move a tiny fraction of the frame during a half second through 2 second exposure. If you still doubt, use the "sunny 16" math for 50 asa film and way darker than sunny conditions and you see that my memory of shutter speed is pretty close--plus I've shot a few bizzillion cliche sunsets before. the waves really are blurry, just not cotton candy blurry...

07-13-2009, 06:57 PM	#20
DigitalSlide Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: US Posts: 30 Original Poster	Ron, that makes perfect sense. My idea was, although it may not work as well with such a beautifully saturated sunset, to have a silky smooth scene which will probably mean 20s or more exposure. I should try it sometime and see what happens.

07-14-2009, 08:13 AM	#21
Ron Boggs Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: MT Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,349	I'm certain your idea would work, but you would need to be closer to the surf. Typically, when you see surf rendered "creamy smooth" it's as the foreground with the photographer apparently doing "wet feet" photography. The distance issue mentioned previously would force the waves into the foreground to "silk" them up. I have a shooting buddy who whips out the 2 stop ND on a regular basis. I've shot most everything but waves with him over the years, but his approach would likely mirror your idea. When water is involved, he's almost always got that 2 stop on. Wouldn't surprise me to catch him with the 2 stop when served a glass of water with his meal.

07-14-2009, 08:53 AM	#22
DigitalSlide Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: US Posts: 30 Original Poster	Speaking of 2 stop ND: while shooting my first 120 film I made use of it due to 1/1000s limit on 645N. That was in bright light and at around F3.5 I was still getting a 1/500. The film was a 160C yet to develop. I hope I got the focus right otherwise the shallow DOF will kill the shots (portraits at close range).