[nnyorkie]

It's been several years since I've shot film. I found a roll of Ilford HP5/400, well past its exp. date, in the bottom of one of my bags, so I figured I'd shoot it. Sent it off to Darkroom (I'd forgotten how pricey development is).

Anyway, I thought I'd share. Minor cropping and contrast work.

ZX-M w/Vivitar 28 and Tokina 70-210

[Swift1]

It's been several years since I've shot film. I found a roll of Ilford HP5/400, well past its exp. date, in the bottom of one of my bags, so I figured I'd shoot it. Sent it off to Darkroom (I'd forgotten how pricey development is).

Anyway, I thought I'd share. Minor cropping and contrast work.

ZX-M w/Vivitar 28 and Tokina 70-210

Nice work!

---------- Post added 10-06-2017 at 12:06 PM ----------

Pentax SF1N
SMC Pentax-F 28/2.8
Fuji Superia 400
Nikon Coolscan V ED

[wkraus]

How many scans so far?

Also, which of the three methids - Coolscan, Flextight and DSLR, provides the least work to get color/contrast right?

I have used the Coolscan for years, for hundreds of scans. With the X1 (Flextight) I have so far processed several films, and likewise with the K-1. Which one is the least work? That depends on your preferences and workflow. I'm an all manual type, so I like a workflow that gives me the most control of all parameters, and that's the DSLR. If all frames of a negative film have been digitized exactly the same way I can apply a global correction to all of them and then correct the colours if needed (if the lighting white balance is off). I tend to adjust the contrast individually anyway.

Scanning software tends to apply auto correction to colour and contrast, so each frame will be different. There are workarounds for this; Vuescan which I use with the Coolscan (the Nikonscan software has not been updated since 2004 and does no longer work on my Mac) allows you to fix exposure and colour. But his needs a lot more attention than just setting the camera to manual and apply the same settings in raw conversion.

Each method has its pros and cons. The Coolscan has a well deserved reputation, but it has a depth of field problem if the film is not totally flat. Even in the glass holder I used to have parts of my scans slightly out of focus. For a while I resorted to focus stacking of two or three different scans but that is not really efficient.

The K-1 with Pixel Shift offers a lot more resolution and sharpness and is unbeatable with regard to speed. However, the resolution is fixed so 35mm scans are more or less on the same level as the X1 but medium format scans are not. I'm under the impression that with the LED lightbox I am now using colours are slightly better that from the scanners with their cold cathode lighting but that needs more testing.

Finally, the X1 comes with slightly awkward software (also fairly dated) and is VERY expensive. It is slow but has only rarely depth of field issues. Colour scans (both slides and negs) tend to have more apparent grain in highlight areas than the K-1 and less in the dark areas; OTOH, when you want to pull out the darkest details there is quite a bit of sensor noise and sometimes visible banding. With very contrasty slides it has less difficulties with highlight details than the K-1 (but I might still learn how to handle that, the dynamic range of the K-1 should in theory be sufficient).

Edit: What I forgot to say: with slides it is easier for the scanner software to get the colours right, so the workflow differences are not too big.

[gofour3]

LX & FA24/2 shooting Provia 100F:



Phil.

[bjolester]

Pentax KX
SMC Pentax FA*24/2
Fuji Provia 400x pushed to ISO 800
Scanned on Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400

[baro-nite]

This is really awesome. Never occurred to me to convert Velvia to black and white, but I think I am going to try...

It's an odd way to get to a b&w image, but it can work very well. I've done it out of desperation but then been quite happy with the result.

[bjolester]

It's an odd way to get to a b&w image, but it can work very well. I've done it out of desperation but then been quite happy with the result.

Since you are commenting on my image: It is quite common to convert colour film to b&w, especially colour negative film. I have done this many times with Kodak Porta 400 for example, and achieved good results. Velvia 100 is a film I seldom use, and with the image you are referring to, I simply realised that b&w was more pleasing than the colour version. There was no desperation involved

[dsmithhfx]

[baro-nite]

Since you are commenting on my image: It is quite common to convert colour film to b&w, especially colour negative film. I have done this many times with Kodak Porta 400 for example, and achieved good results. Velvia 100 is a film I seldom use, and with the image you are referring to, I simply realised that b&w was more pleasing than the colour version. There was no desperation involved

Sorry, wasn't really commenting on your image, which is excellent. Velvia is sharp and contrasty and can make excellent b/w, as you've shown. It's just a rather roundabout (and relatively costly) way to produce b/w imagery, which is why I never plan it that way from the beginning. But if it works better in b/w I have no problem converting it in PP.

[bjolester]

Sorry, wasn't really commenting on your image, which is excellent. Velvia is sharp and contrasty and can make excellent b/w, as you've shown. It's just a rather roundabout (and relatively costly) way to produce b/w imagery, which is why I never plan it that way from the beginning. But if it works better in b/w I have no problem converting it in PP.

OK, I understand. All is well!

[dsmithhfx]

[rhmimac]

Played around with some Film Photography Project InfraChrome. They claim that it's "identical to Kodak Aerochrome IIII 1443", which means it's likely just bulk rolls of Aerochrome sliced up and spooled.

Never having shot it before, I tried with both the recommended yellow 12 filter and the less-recommended-but-still-possible red filter. General conclusions are that the yellow shots tended to be more in focus,* sharper, and with better colours, while the red filter ran "hot" by about a stop and gave everything a yellow cast. (Since I accidentally underexposed it a bit, this meant the red shots were better exposed.)

* No idea why this would be; I was adjusting focus using the IR mark for shots with both filters.

Would I try it again? I dunno. It's neat, but it's expensive and feels a bit like a one trick pony. Maybe if I had some real ideas on what to do with it.









Canon FTb.
B&H/Canon FD 50mm f1.4 SSC [shots 1 & 2]/Canon (New) FD 28mm f2.8 [shots 3 & 4].
FPP Infrachrome with Yellow 12 filter [shots 1, 2, & 3] and Red filter [shot 4].

The last city view is excellent.

[drmoss_ca]

F6, 28/1.4, Portra 400, Argentix presskit, X1 scan:






Chris

[tonezime]

K1000 + M 135/3.5 (I think), Portra 400

[PenPusher]

A nice set with very nice colours, I particularly like the one of the road crew.

I'm moving (slowly) back to film, there is something about it that I can't define that digital does not have and I've sufficient working camera bodies and lenses acquired over the last 50 years or so to indulge myself in both systems.

Choosing a B & W film I found straightforward as I remembered what I had used long ago and liked but colour negative is another matter. When I used it before it was scientifically decided by what was on special offer at the supermarket but since I've really looked at the different characteristics of the film types displayed in this thread, some of which I can get and some I can't its become something of a puzzle - should I buy that one, or perhaps that would be better but will I get this one instead or......

CD