:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots

**mattt** · 12-21-2014, 08:04 PM

Never thought to use the socks for WB adjustment. The little guy doesn't look so pastey now. Cheers.

Swift1 · 12-21-2014, 09:59 PM - **3 Likes**

Originally posted by mattt

I've had issues with poorly exposed frames, and I don't feel I have the skill / tools to get the most out of the negative.

This image left me underwhelmed - I supposed the mixed light is the cause, but It just leaves me wanting more. Thoughts? Again, Portra 400, but indoors with ambient light at a shutter speed that should be faster.

Mixed lighting and underexposed frames are tricky, but not because of the scanner. The scanner software needs to find or be given a reference point for color balance. In auto mode, it will try to use whatever it thinks ought to be neutral within the frame. If there is nothing neutral in the frame, the software will pick something close, which will make the color balance off.
With mixed lighting conditions, the software just gets confused.
I would try scanning that in ICM mode, and set your black point using the unexposed film border, set your grey (mid point) to 1.00, then set your white point with the eyedropper on the brightest point boys right toe (sock).
That's just me kinda guessing based on the posted image, it may require some trial and error using the white point tool, or the grey balance tool.

**mattt** · 12-21-2014, 10:38 PM

Exactly what I'm looking for. Thanks.

malinku · 12-21-2014, 11:22 PM

A shot on my Mamiya/Sekor 500 DTL. With kodak Gold 200.

For the most part auto on my Epson perfection 3200 photo works well. I just eye drop the white part of the image (If there is one) and normally have a good working image.

Cuthbert · 12-22-2014, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by Swift1

I would love to hear your process for getting from a strip of negative film to a positive digital image. How are you insuring that you end up with a "correct" rendition of what is exactly on the film? What is your reference for knowing exactly what the positive image ought to look like?
How do you see a positive image from negative film without inverting or "interpreting" it?

What is the correct rendition of a film? That's a simple question: the one which alterates less the final result and ensures the most realistic shoot without modifications, you can just ask a sound engineer which is the best process to transfer a complicated pattern of sound waves called "music" on a digital support like a cd.

How to do that? That's another story, it is very complicated, if I can continue to use the music metaphore think about how many brilliant live albums have been ruined by bad sound engineering/recording.

On the other side many LPs of the past that sounded great now they don't sound so great because people realised they were "overengineered" when they were not completely "fake" sounding, just think about the electronic drum sets of the 80s or the first Moog synths...in the 70s reputable rock groups wrote "no synths added" to the sleeve of their LPs.

**filoxophy** · 12-22-2014, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by Cuthbert

What is the correct rendition of a film? That's a simple question: the one which alterates less the final result and ensures the most realistic shoot without modifications, you can just ask a sound engineer which is the best process to transfer a complicated pattern of sound waves called "music" on a digital support like a cd.

How to do that? That's another story, it is very complicated, if I can continue to use the music metaphore think about how many brilliant live albums have been ruined by bad sound engineering/recording.

On the other side many LPs of the past that sounded great now they don't sound so great because people realised they were "overengineered" when they were not completely "fake" sounding, just think about the electronic drum sets of the 80s or the first Moog synths...in the 70s reputable rock groups wrote "no synths added" to the sleeve of their LPs.

Each film, color/B&W/whatever, will record a scene uniquely. So is it okay to say "I want bright saturated colors, so I will shoot this scene with Velvia"? Because you'll get a totally different result than if you shot in Ektar, or Tri-X, or whatever.

Why would it be more acceptable to alter the output with "preprocessing" than with postprocessing?

Cuthbert · 12-22-2014, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by filoxophy

Each film, color/B&W/whatever, will record a scene uniquely. So is it okay to say "I want bright saturated colors, so I will shoot this scene with Velvia"? Because you'll get a totally different result than if you shot in Ektar, or Tri-X, or whatever.

Why would it be more acceptable to alter the output with "preprocessing" than with postprocessing?

Why is it acceptable for a guitarist to say "well, for this song I prefer to play a Les Paul instead of a Stratocaster because the sound would fit better" and it's not to use a synth that mimics an electric guitar? While people still listen to string quartets instead of just a keyboardist who can play the same thing?

**filoxophy** · 12-22-2014, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by Cuthbert

Why is it acceptable for a guitarist to say "well, for this song I prefer to play a Les Paul instead of a Stratocaster because the sound would fit better" and it's not to use a synth that mimics an electric guitar? While people still listen to string quartets instead of just a keyboardist who can play the same thing?

That sounds like a film vs digital analogy to me; I was just trying to point out that there's no such thing as pure unadulterated/uninterpreted output in the real world of photography. Whether it's the camera's lens, the film emulsion, the lab chemicals, the scanner, the lab technician--choices, translations, and interpretations have been made all through the image chain.

Oh well, we've gone way OT on a thread dedicated to photo sharing and not debate. I think we're just talking past each other anyways. All the best to you, I'll see you around the forum.

LesDMess · 12-22-2014, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by Cuthbert

I conclude saying that for me scanning is just a way to share the pics online, and that's the way I intend to do that, I prefer to check the negatives or the slides to understand if it's a good picture or not, but of course it's not possible to publish online something straight and a digitalisation is necessary, but IMO it should be as neutral as possible without any attempt to improve or manipulate the results....if I were fine with that I would simply go DSLR.

For me the same applies to pictures, what I want to see is what's on the film,not how the scanner "interpretates" the data.

There are many reasons I shoot film instead of DSLRs such as latitude.

Full res -> http://www.fototime.com/3EDD4D13204247B/orig.jpg

There are many reasons we all use film but I believe any reason is a good reason for as long as we do . . .

**filoxophy** · 12-22-2014, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by LesDMess

There are many reasons we all use film but I believe any reason is a good reason for as long as we do

+1 to that!

LesDMess · 12-22-2014, 07:59 AM - **3 Likes**

I use film even for banal snapshots such as this one taken with the Olympus OM-4T+Kiron 105mm f2.8 using Lomography 100 negative . . .

alan_smithee_photos · 12-22-2014, 10:22 AM - **7 Likes**

Nikon F4, Nikkor AF 50mm 1.8, Portra 800

(cross-posted from here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/283154-people-carolyn...m-digital.html)

Swift1 · 12-22-2014, 12:38 PM - **1 Like**

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

womble · 12-22-2014, 03:43 PM

Nice one Colton. I'm getting to the stage I recognise your photos before I see your name. K.

edmundrt · 12-22-2014, 04:01 PM - **1 Like**

Nice one Colton! Reminds me that I had another Bronica shot I wanted to share.

Zenza Bronica ETRC, Zenzanon EII 75/2.8, Fujicolor Superia 100
This lens and film is a killer combo, great colours and that elusive 'almost 3D' look. It's a great shame that Fuji discontinued S100.

This is an iffy low-res lab scan but having just received an Epson V550 for my birthday it's hi-res from hereon in.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K20D test shots at Lets Go Digital	schufosi777	Pentax News and Rumors	6	04-20-2013 11:31 AM
Macro Cool Macro shots	derajjjg	Post Your Photos!	2	12-27-2009 09:36 PM
Lets see your Moon and Mars shots	Igilligan	Post Your Photos!	9	12-05-2009 08:55 AM
Way cool bat shots	and	General Talk	7	10-01-2009 02:54 AM
Cool Shots & Info	Fl_Gulfer	Post Your Photos!	0	12-10-2007 11:44 AM

12-21-2014, 08:04 PM	#10606
mattt Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Niagara Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,907	Never thought to use the socks for WB adjustment. The little guy doesn't look so pastey now. Cheers.

12-21-2014, 09:59 PM - 3 Likes	#10607
Swift1 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oregon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,079	Originally posted by mattt I've had issues with poorly exposed frames, and I don't feel I have the skill / tools to get the most out of the negative. This image left me underwhelmed - I supposed the mixed light is the cause, but It just leaves me wanting more. Thoughts? Again, Portra 400, but indoors with ambient light at a shutter speed that should be faster. Mixed lighting and underexposed frames are tricky, but not because of the scanner. The scanner software needs to find or be given a reference point for color balance. In auto mode, it will try to use whatever it thinks ought to be neutral within the frame. If there is nothing neutral in the frame, the software will pick something close, which will make the color balance off. With mixed lighting conditions, the software just gets confused. I would try scanning that in ICM mode, and set your black point using the unexposed film border, set your grey (mid point) to 1.00, then set your white point with the eyedropper on the brightest point boys right toe (sock). That's just me kinda guessing based on the posted image, it may require some trial and error using the white point tool, or the grey balance tool.

12-21-2014, 10:38 PM	#10608
mattt Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Niagara Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,907	Exactly what I'm looking for. Thanks.

12-21-2014, 11:22 PM	#10609
malinku Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 402	A shot on my Mamiya/Sekor 500 DTL. With kodak Gold 200. For the most part auto on my Epson perfection 3200 photo works well. I just eye drop the white part of the image (If there is one) and normally have a good working image.

12-22-2014, 01:08 AM	#10610
Cuthbert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,740	Originally posted by Swift1 I would love to hear your process for getting from a strip of negative film to a positive digital image. How are you insuring that you end up with a "correct" rendition of what is exactly on the film? What is your reference for knowing exactly what the positive image ought to look like? How do you see a positive image from negative film without inverting or "interpreting" it? What is the correct rendition of a film? That's a simple question: the one which alterates less the final result and ensures the most realistic shoot without modifications, you can just ask a sound engineer which is the best process to transfer a complicated pattern of sound waves called "music" on a digital support like a cd. How to do that? That's another story, it is very complicated, if I can continue to use the music metaphore think about how many brilliant live albums have been ruined by bad sound engineering/recording. On the other side many LPs of the past that sounded great now they don't sound so great because people realised they were "overengineered" when they were not completely "fake" sounding, just think about the electronic drum sets of the 80s or the first Moog synths...in the 70s reputable rock groups wrote "no synths added" to the sleeve of their LPs.

12-22-2014, 01:27 AM	#10611
filoxophy Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Albuquerque Posts: 1,133	Originally posted by Cuthbert What is the correct rendition of a film? That's a simple question: the one which alterates less the final result and ensures the most realistic shoot without modifications, you can just ask a sound engineer which is the best process to transfer a complicated pattern of sound waves called "music" on a digital support like a cd. How to do that? That's another story, it is very complicated, if I can continue to use the music metaphore think about how many brilliant live albums have been ruined by bad sound engineering/recording. On the other side many LPs of the past that sounded great now they don't sound so great because people realised they were "overengineered" when they were not completely "fake" sounding, just think about the electronic drum sets of the 80s or the first Moog synths...in the 70s reputable rock groups wrote "no synths added" to the sleeve of their LPs. Each film, color/B&W/whatever, will record a scene uniquely. So is it okay to say "I want bright saturated colors, so I will shoot this scene with Velvia"? Because you'll get a totally different result than if you shot in Ektar, or Tri-X, or whatever. Why would it be more acceptable to alter the output with "preprocessing" than with postprocessing?

12-22-2014, 06:28 AM	#10612
Cuthbert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,740	Originally posted by filoxophy Each film, color/B&W/whatever, will record a scene uniquely. So is it okay to say "I want bright saturated colors, so I will shoot this scene with Velvia"? Because you'll get a totally different result than if you shot in Ektar, or Tri-X, or whatever. Why would it be more acceptable to alter the output with "preprocessing" than with postprocessing? Why is it acceptable for a guitarist to say "well, for this song I prefer to play a Les Paul instead of a Stratocaster because the sound would fit better" and it's not to use a synth that mimics an electric guitar? While people still listen to string quartets instead of just a keyboardist who can play the same thing?

12-22-2014, 06:51 AM	#10613
filoxophy Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Albuquerque Posts: 1,133	Originally posted by Cuthbert Why is it acceptable for a guitarist to say "well, for this song I prefer to play a Les Paul instead of a Stratocaster because the sound would fit better" and it's not to use a synth that mimics an electric guitar? While people still listen to string quartets instead of just a keyboardist who can play the same thing? That sounds like a film vs digital analogy to me; I was just trying to point out that there's no such thing as pure unadulterated/uninterpreted output in the real world of photography. Whether it's the camera's lens, the film emulsion, the lab chemicals, the scanner, the lab technician--choices, translations, and interpretations have been made all through the image chain. Oh well, we've gone way OT on a thread dedicated to photo sharing and not debate. I think we're just talking past each other anyways. All the best to you, I'll see you around the forum.

12-22-2014, 06:59 AM	#10614
LesDMess Pentaxian Join Date: May 2011 Location: Santa Cruz, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,235	Originally posted by Cuthbert I conclude saying that for me scanning is just a way to share the pics online, and that's the way I intend to do that, I prefer to check the negatives or the slides to understand if it's a good picture or not, but of course it's not possible to publish online something straight and a digitalisation is necessary, but IMO it should be as neutral as possible without any attempt to improve or manipulate the results....if I were fine with that I would simply go DSLR. For me the same applies to pictures, what I want to see is what's on the film,not how the scanner "interpretates" the data. There are many reasons I shoot film instead of DSLRs such as latitude. Full res -> http://www.fototime.com/3EDD4D13204247B/orig.jpg There are many reasons we all use film but I believe any reason is a good reason for as long as we do . . .

12-22-2014, 07:10 AM	#10615
filoxophy Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Albuquerque Posts: 1,133	Originally posted by LesDMess There are many reasons we all use film but I believe any reason is a good reason for as long as we do +1 to that!

12-22-2014, 07:59 AM - 3 Likes	#10616
LesDMess Pentaxian Join Date: May 2011 Location: Santa Cruz, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,235	I use film even for banal snapshots such as this one taken with the Olympus OM-4T+Kiron 105mm f2.8 using Lomography 100 negative . . .

12-22-2014, 10:22 AM - 7 Likes	#10617
alan_smithee_photos Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 844	Nikon F4, Nikkor AF 50mm 1.8, Portra 800 (cross-posted from here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/283154-people-carolyn...m-digital.html)

12-22-2014, 12:38 PM - 1 Like	#10618
Swift1 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oregon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,079	Zenza Bronica ETRSi Zenzanon EII 75/2.8 Kodak Ektar 100 Epson V500

12-22-2014, 03:43 PM	#10619
womble Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Hertfordshire Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,324	Nice one Colton. I'm getting to the stage I recognise your photos before I see your name. K.

12-22-2014, 04:01 PM - 1 Like	#10620
edmundrt Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: Nagoya Posts: 577	Nice one Colton! Reminds me that I had another Bronica shot I wanted to share. Zenza Bronica ETRC, Zenzanon EII 75/2.8, Fujicolor Superia 100 This lens and film is a killer combo, great colours and that elusive 'almost 3D' look. It's a great shame that Fuji discontinued S100. This is an iffy low-res lab scan but having just received an Epson V550 for my birthday it's hi-res from hereon in.