[tuco]

Thanks for the comment! I personally at a stage to experiment those 'overexposed' look (like those typically seen in film wedding photo) but apparently still learning and not quite there.

They don't look over exposed to me ( just high keyish). The subject has no blown highlights. The background is just accent highlights which who says has to be in gamut? Where one places their middle gray exposure is their choice and should not be dictated by some photography rules, IMHO.

[manntax]

Thanks for the comment! I personally at a stage to experiment those 'overexposed' look (like those typically seen in film wedding photo) but apparently still learning and not quite there. Printing is always a issue, different lab print differently and only few left that print directly from negatives (in this case my images turn out fine, and actually some still underexposed, in my opinion)... and those that I send digital file to print varied even greatly from store to store... I guess if I want to print large, I will have to stick with one lab and adjust my image according to that lab.

Thanks for an explanation. I also think that this is very nice processing - although your film images doesn't look so much film-like after that, just the DOF and rendering are hinting that this couldn't have been digital :P Personally think that this could look even more appealing in print - if only one could control the process of that of course.

Great work either way and thanks for sharing !

[LFLee]

Thanks for an explanation. I also think that this is very nice processing - although your film images doesn't look so much film-like after that, just the DOF and rendering are hinting that this couldn't have been digital :P Personally think that this could look even more appealing in print - if only one could control the process of that of course.

Great work either way and thanks for sharing !

hm.... it was scanned by lab, I think I need to talk to the lab about the 'doesn't look so much film-like look'... I personally also think it loses a lot of colors. Will update if I get reply from them.

[LesDMess]

hm.... it was scanned by lab, I think I need to talk to the lab about the 'doesn't look so much film-like look'... I personally also think it loses a lot of colors. Will update if I get reply from them.

Are they using a Noritsu or Frontier scanner?

[tuco]

hm.... it was scanned by lab, I think I need to talk to the lab about the 'doesn't look so much film-like look'... I personally also think it loses a lot of colors. Will update if I get reply from them.

Looks like film to me. Perhaps because it doesn't look like small format it is confused with something else. ALL the posted pictures here have been converted to digital

[LFLee]

Are they using a Noritsu or Frontier scanner?

I couldn't find the info, it was scanned by The FIND lab in UT. C-41 PROCESSING | theFINDlab
I have seen very good scan examples from them (that's why I switched to them from Dwayne's Photo), so maybe is my problem after all...
(emailed them, will see how it goes...)

---------- Post added 10-15-2014 at 01:47 PM ----------

Looks like film to me. Perhaps because it doesn't look like small format it is confused with something else. ALL the posted pictures here have been converted to digital

Thanks tuco for the feedback!

[LesDMess]

I personally don't see your images as having any problems.
If you look in the EXIF it usually list Noritsu if it is.

[Swift1]

hm.... it was scanned by lab, I think I need to talk to the lab about the 'doesn't look so much film-like look'... I personally also think it loses a lot of colors. Will update if I get reply from them.

I think they look very much "like film", and the scanning looks well done, judging by the small web images.
I personally think that the general perception of "the film look" has been slowly skewed by years of mediocre scanning.
IMO, the popular VCSO software, which is supposed to emulate color film, just looks like poorly scanned Fuji Superia.

[SpartanD63]

Looks like film to me. Perhaps because it doesn't look like small format it is confused with something else. ALL the posted pictures here have been converted to digital

Yup. The lack of grain from medium format doesn't fit in with the "film look" people are used to from 35mm and smaller consumer formats.

[LesDMess]

Yup. The lack of grain from medium format doesn't fit in with the "film look" people are used to from 35mm and smaller consumer formats.

Probably a lot of folks assume fine grain as digital only . . .

A fine grained film like Fuji Pro400H - exposed and scanned properly, will not exhibit any grain on websize posts even from 35mm let alone from medium format compacted to websize.

This is from 35mm Fuji Pro400H at maximum allowable size here.



Even viewing at 100%, a 400dpi scan still maintains grain structure pretty well -> http://www.fototime.com/1EF5602F22681F1/orig.jpg
Please note that viewing past 100% on-screen and you will start seeing the squarish patterns due to JPEG artifacting from compressing this down to manageable filesize.
This "grain" won't even show on ultra glossy (highest res) paper at B size on my Epson with a loupe.

Today's negative films have improved on grain from before and slides even better.

[manntax]

hm.... it was scanned by lab, I think I need to talk to the lab about the 'doesn't look so much film-like look'... I personally also think it loses a lot of colors. Will update if I get reply from them.

Don't get me wrong - I think images are great. What I meant is perhaps due to this being larger format that say 35mm - this is reducing grain perhaps to the point that it is indistinguishable to the eye from web images. Images from 35mm format that I am used to - even scanned perfectly - are showing more grain structure and sort of roughness that I quickly recognise. Recently there was a thread about session with model where somebody had some digital shots and some from MX and Rollei camera. Film shots were more life like, clearly had this not-digital look. Perhaps your images are processed in this way that they trick the eye - after all they are converted to digital with some processing like split toning, etc. which adds this digital feel.

Another example what I mean is photo from Swift1 (post2974343) - it is also medium format. Different film etc.. but I clearly get the film-feel from that shot. Perhaps processing is different, etc. but nonetheless perceive that shot differently , thanks to that very fine, delicate grain structure that I don't see in your last image (post2975751 - I am not talking about any other images at this point, mind you ) - check for yourself how background in your shot shows no grain at all - where in Swift1 shot it ( granted: limited ) shows some fine grain.

Again do not get confused - images are great and appear to be of extremely high quality both in exposure and scanning/processing - they just have different feel to them - that's it

---------- Post added 10-15-14 at 08:39 PM ----------

Probably a lot of folks assume fine grain as digital only . . . A fine grained film like Fuji Pro400H - exposed and scanned properly, will not exhibit any grain on websize posts even from 35mm let alone from medium format compacted to websize. This is from 35mm Fuji Pro400H at maximum allowable size here.

You are quite right - grain is very well controlled in current negatives. Especially when well exposed and scanned. But I can clearly see in your photo that this is a film shot - because that very fine grain structure is visible to my eye - at least in shadow areas.

I think what LFLee manages is well exposed shots are reducing grain ( here is having them high-keyish so that is further reducing grain ) + good scanning + good post processing ( which can do wonders :P )

[Jonathan Mac]

MZ-5N, Kodak Gold 200


MZ-5N Kodak Gold 200 068a by Jonathan_in_Madrid, on Flickr


MZ-5N Kodak Gold 200 051a by Jonathan_in_Madrid, on Flickr


MZ-5N Kodak Gold 200 049a by Jonathan_in_Madrid, on Flickr

[Swift1]

MZ-5N, Kodak Gold 200

Kodak Gold is such great film.
Nice work.

---------- Post added 10-15-2014 at 07:27 PM ----------

Zenza Bronica ETRSi
Zenzanon EII 75/2.8
Kodak Ektar 100
Epson V500

[Clarkey]

Took a closer look at the negatives and yes, it does show up all the way through to the sprocket holes. But on the entire roll, there's only 5 streaks and their locations are not related to longer intervals between those frames.

Oh well, I haven't replaced the seals yet so that is probably the culprit.

Sounds like leaks may be the problem, and by the frequency, on the seals on the film door (becoming apparent when holding the camera or advancing film).

I have a different problem - I periodically get a "prism" effect from one position on my Konica Minolta Scanner that looks very similar to what you are experiencing.

Speaking of which, I have my scanner plugged in and warmed up tonight. It's been a while...

[Nuff]