[cooltouch]

No doubt there are likely considerable color response differences between Ektar 100 and Velvia 100F particularly since the former doesn't have any reciprocity compensation while the latter does. I believe they have the same contrast range but to your point Velvia 100F would be denser especially in this case as it is underexposed by quite a bit. However, the 30 second limitation of all Canons compared to the practically unlimited exposure time of the LX - in this case over 15 minutes, clearly shows the most significant difference.

This is very true, and the differences in the two films in the above comparison readily show this. But Canon users do not need to feel all that left out in the cold. All they need is an electronic cable release and a good handheld meter, like my old but trustworthy Gossen Luna Pro SBC (Profisix for those of you in Europe), which reads down almost as far as the LX (-5 EV compared to the LX's astounding -6.5 EV), and then perhaps a smartphone so they can set a timer in case they doze off while they wait. Or, they can dust off the old FTb and use "B" and a locking cable release. But they still might want to use a smartphone. But I get it -- the true, indispensable value of the LX is that it can compensate during exposure.

I'm wondering -- showing my ignorance here -- but given the way digital cameras work, namely that the sensor is being used as a meter as well as a gatherer of an image -- do any of the major manufacturers have this extended metering capability as found on the LX -- or anywhere even close? Or do they depend entirely on boosting ISO instead?

Kodak released some kiosks around Chicago a few years back that did exactly this. You drop off your film, it will process it to the point that it can scan and then just give you the CD as the film is worthless due to this abbreviated processing cycle. I wouldn't consider it myself, but given that some people have a limited expectation, I am surprised they didn't continue - or expand it, more.

You know, if Kodak were a bit more forward thinking and flexible in their approach, they could still make this work -- or Fuji, far as that goes, or Noritsu and other makers of the developing equipment. Instead of distributing the people's "film" back to them on CDs at what -- maybe 5mp resolution? -- try bumping it up a LOT, say to images that are 4000 x 6000 (about 24mp) burned to blu-ray DVDs for the increased capacity, and they'd have a lot more takers, me included, since this resolution is the result you get with a Nikon CoolScan.

[Swift1]

I'm wondering -- showing my ignorance here -- but given the way digital cameras work, namely that the sensor is being used as a meter as well as a gatherer of an image -- do any of the major manufacturers have this extended metering capability as found on the LX -- or anywhere even close? Or do they depend entirely on boosting ISO instead?

I'm pretty sure digital sensors a quite limited by heat build up.
I think my K-01 only meters to 30 seconds.

[cooltouch]

Ah yes, I'd forgotten about this.

[LesDMess]

Instead of distributing the people's "film" back to them on CDs at what -- maybe 5mp resolution? -- try bumping it up a LOT, say to images that are 4000 x 6000 (about 24mp) burned to blu-ray DVDs for the increased capacity, and they'd have a lot more takers, me included, since this resolution is the result you get with a Nikon CoolScan.

I wish it were just resolution but I usually don't agree with their color and contrast interpretation.

[skierd]

Colton, how much do you shoot and what is your workflow like? It seems like you shoot as much 120 as I shoot digital, and I know it can't be that easy finding the time to process, send out, scan, and edit before uploading.

You've got a great eye for composition, you really do. I know it can't be easy for you to get out and shoot, let alone be as prolific as it appears that you are, so I'm just curious. Lots of film? Lots of keepers? Both?

[arnold]

Olympus 35 SP and Kodak Ektar 100
Note Sail Surfers in distance.

[Swift1]

Colton, how much do you shoot and what is your workflow like? It seems like you shoot as much 120 as I shoot digital, and I know it can't be that easy finding the time to process, send out, scan, and edit before uploading.

You've got a great eye for composition, you really do. I know it can't be easy for you to get out and shoot, let alone be as prolific as it appears that you are, so I'm just curious. Lots of film? Lots of keepers? Both?

I try to get out and shoot at least 1 or 2 frames every day, but probably end up getting out around 4 days a week. Some days I don't take any photos, some days I might take 10. I probably average 1-2 rolls per week. I have a very good friend who comes by and he'll take me out in my wheelchair van and get coffee and take photos, usually twice a week. He shoots film also, and we have a lot of fun usually.
Some days I will go out by myself on my powerchair, just around town for an hour or so, usually with an AF 35mm camera since I can sorta operate it on my own.
My mom helps me quite a bit as she's my caretaker when my wife is working.
I'm permanently disabled, and literally can't do anything without assistance, except using the computer, so I often have lots of time on my hands. I spend lots of time scanning and editing, although it probably only adds up to 15 minutes per frame for the frames that I like. I personally feel that it's better to spend all the time necessary on one frame to get it from scan to presentation, than to quickly process 10 frames poorly. Every frame that I decide to process gets full treatment from start to finish.
I see scanning as one stage of the digital darkroom. The end goal being the print, and a web jpeg is essentially a small print in my mind. The scanning process is simply collecting as much good data as possible. My scans often look somewhat different from my final image.
Once scanned, I make the image from that scan. I know that probably sounds cliche and often overstated, but I find it important to think this way.
My processing/editing workflow is probably a bit rudimentary
I've never done any kind of photoshop tutorials or anything, just slowly figured out what works or doesn't work for me. My basic order of operations is (using ACDSee Pro 6), Flip, Rotate, Crop, Levels, Sharpen lightly, then save as new file. Then open in PSE 9, clone dust spots, apply tone curve if necessary, and save. Then back in ACDSee, resize, sharpen lightly (I find that some blur is introduced during resampling), then add border and signature.
I don't think I shoot tons, but I think I've gotten pretty good at getting the most out of a roll of film. On my recent Rolleiflex Portra 400 roll, out of 12 frames, I have 9 that I like well enough to post on Flickr.

[UgurUgurlu]

Canon Eos 300
Agfaphoto Vista 400

[Swift1]

Zenza Bronica ETRSi
Zenzanon MC 50/2.8
Kodak Ektar 100
Epson V500

[Jacquot]

Zenza Bronica ETRSi
Zenzanon MC 50/2.8
Kodak Ektar 100
Epson V500

The scaffolding and protection together with the clouds makes for something really ominous. The positioning of the walking man is just right, and he's headed in the right direction. Another nice one...

[_Ben]

Alright folks thanks for the help with EV and redscale. I even managed to pull off my first multiple exposure. I failed at this location a couple days before, but gained some insight to make it work.

645 80-160mm. Lomography Redscale 100. Tiffen ND 3.0

[skyer]

I try to get out and shoot at least 1 or 2 frames every day, but probably end up getting out around 4 days a week. Some days I don't take any photos, some days I might take 10. I probably average 1-2 rolls per week. I have a very good friend who comes by and he'll take me out in my wheelchair van and get coffee and take photos, usually twice a week. He shoots film also, and we have a lot of fun usually.
Some days I will go out by myself on my powerchair, just around town for an hour or so, usually with an AF 35mm camera since I can sorta operate it on my own.
My mom helps me quite a bit as she's my caretaker when my wife is working.
I'm permanently disabled, and literally can't do anything without assistance, except using the computer, so I often have lots of time on my hands. I spend lots of time scanning and editing, although it probably only adds up to 15 minutes per frame for the frames that I like. I personally feel that it's better to spend all the time necessary on one frame to get it from scan to presentation, than to quickly process 10 frames poorly. Every frame that I decide to process gets full treatment from start to finish.
I see scanning as one stage of the digital darkroom. The end goal being the print, and a web jpeg is essentially a small print in my mind. The scanning process is simply collecting as much good data as possible. My scans often look somewhat different from my final image.
Once scanned, I make the image from that scan. I know that probably sounds cliche and often overstated, but I find it important to think this way.
My processing/editing workflow is probably a bit rudimentary
I've never done any kind of photoshop tutorials or anything, just slowly figured out what works or doesn't work for me. My basic order of operations is (using ACDSee Pro 6), Flip, Rotate, Crop, Levels, Sharpen lightly, then save as new file. Then open in PSE 9, clone dust spots, apply tone curve if necessary, and save. Then back in ACDSee, resize, sharpen lightly (I find that some blur is introduced during resampling), then add border and signature.
I don't think I shoot tons, but I think I've gotten pretty good at getting the most out of a roll of film. On my recent Rolleiflex Portra 400 roll, out of 12 frames, I have 9 that I like well enough to post on Flickr.

Thank you for your photos, Colton! They are of a very high standard! It also seems to me that you are a good person and many Pentaxforums readers (including me) are really grateful for the acquaintance with you and your work!

As for the scanning, my opinion is a little bit different. I, personally, don't want to make images from scans. I think that when we edit film scans too much we loose the benefits of film. So far I prefer good Noritsu scans to scans from other scanners (even Nikon 9000). I find Noritsu's color rendition to be the best.

[_Ben]

Another from the last roll of redscale. A bit different with the sun over my left shoulder instead of shooting directly into it. Four minute exposure.

645 80-160mm, Lomography redscale 100, Tiffen ND 3.0

[Swift1]

Thank you for your photos, Colton! They are of a very high standard! It also seems to me that you are a good person and many Pentaxforums readers (including me) are really grateful for the acquaintance with you and your work!

As for the scanning, my opinion is a little bit different. I, personally, don't want to make images from scans. I think that when we edit film scans too much we loose the benefits of film. So far I prefer good Noritsu scans to scans from other scanners (even Nikon 9000). I find Noritsu's color rendition to be the best.

Thank you.
I pretty much agree with you about editing and loosing the characteristics of the film.
Making a positive image from a negative isn't a simple 1:1 kinda switch though. It is more like translating from one language to another. You can leave the translation up to a translator (Noritsu) or translate yourself. With different translators you will get different translations. Some translators will try to give exact translations, which might be accurate but it might not be pretty, and some might have an idea of what you're after and so makes the translation work better.
Any which way you scan, there is some editing going on. Either the scanner and software is doing it, or you're doing it.
In the end, it all comes down to whether your chosen path is working for you. If it works and you're happy with your results, then you're on the right track.

[cooltouch]

Colton and Skyer, I too don't use my scanner much anymore, except maybe for medium format. It's an Epson 4990, the top of the line model previous to the V7xx series. I find it does a respectable job with medium format, both negatives and positives, but it just doesn't have the resolution I require for 35mm. And after much casting about, searching for different ways to improve my 35mm digitizations, I finally came up with a duplicator rig for my EOS DSLR and I now use it with my NEX 7, which provides me with dupes that are equivalent to those you get when scanning using a Nikon CoolScan (6000 x 4000 ppi). It's a piece of cake, duping slides with this rig, but when it comes to duping negatives, it can be more of a challenge. Fortunately, I found a roll-film stage for it, so I can mount the negatives in the rig too.

Duping b&w negs is quite simple. Usually all that's required in post is a contrast increase. But duping color negs can be a bit trickier, as Colton alluded to. I've found that most C-41 films I've used (so far, just Kodak and Fuji) can be duped pretty successfully using either PhotoShop's or Paint Shop Pro's built-in negative routine. But not all. For some reason, Ektar does not dupe well using these routines. I wind up with too much cyan in the reversed image that I just can't get rid of. One person suggested that I use a piece of the clear Ektar (actually orange) to set a neutral point and then reverse from there. That might work, but I haven't figured out how to do it yet. Given that cyan's complementary color is red, it might help to try and set Ektar's orange to neutral.

Now that I've begun developing my own color film, including positve and negative film, I'll be using these routines more. And maybe I'll even give Ektar a few more tries. But I'm pretty lukewarm to the stuff. Even my Epson 4990, using Epson Scan software, has problems with it. Light browns scan as light purples, which I then have to correct in post. So anymore these days, if I want to use a good negative film that produces results as good as a fine slide film, I use Kodak's Portra. That is a very nice film. It's color neutral with good saturation and very fine grain. I like it a lot.