biglouis Posted October 25, 2009 Share #1 Posted October 25, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) M8 28/2.8 - surprised to see a field which appears to be growing a crop this late in the year. Last time I passed this spot in August it was recently harvested. [ATTACH]169653[/ATTACH] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 Hi biglouis, Take a look here Field, Latchford Herts. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stuny Posted October 25, 2009 Share #2 Posted October 25, 2009 Big - Beautiful for light, depth, detail, relative simplicity, color and composition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauledell Posted October 26, 2009 Share #3 Posted October 26, 2009 Louis, Great shot with lovely composition, colors, spaciousness and clarity. Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicamann Posted October 26, 2009 Share #4 Posted October 26, 2009 has the potential for a great image.... the highlights are blown and I would consider a different time of day and angle to get the best out of this...brigt sunny days are murder on any digital sensor. Cheers, JRM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted October 27, 2009 Author Share #5 Posted October 27, 2009 has the potential for a great image.... the highlights are blown and I would consider a different time of day and angle to get the best out of this...brigt sunny days are murder on any digital sensor. Cheers, JRM Interesting point about digital sensors which I can exemplify with this capture which was a few seconds later from my M7, lux35, Fuji Superia 100. [ATTACH]169995[/ATTACH] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vdb Posted October 29, 2009 Share #6 Posted October 29, 2009 Love the vastness. That sky is begging for B&W.....:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
inalux Posted October 29, 2009 Share #7 Posted October 29, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) thanks for sharing both photos Louis. Film is still better IMO..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauledell Posted October 30, 2009 Share #8 Posted October 30, 2009 thanks for sharing both photos Louis. Film is still better IMO..... In this case, I agree with Jos. There seems like an intangible quality about the film version that isn't in the first one. IMO of course. Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted October 30, 2009 Share #9 Posted October 30, 2009 I like both versions, possibly because of different viewpoints. It is difficult to identify the crop from a distance, but my guess is it is for green manure. Watch that space! I bet it is ploughed in early next year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted October 30, 2009 Author Share #10 Posted October 30, 2009 Virgil, Jos, Paul, David - thanks for taking the time to comment. I also think the film version looks better. Quite a surprise for me. Virgil, I agree with you about a B&W version but I wanted to express my surprise at seeing such a verdant field in what is late Autumn, almost the onset of winter. David, thanks for the clarification as to what it might be. LouisB PS David's website is well worth a visit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicamann Posted October 31, 2009 Share #11 Posted October 31, 2009 Ditto...see what I mean!!! I am sorry, I am terribly biased towards film, a deep and indelible prejudice that I am afraid will never change no matter how "good" digital gets..unless of course Fuji finally has the guts to come out with their "emulsion" sensor....I guess they are still having problems, once they get that ironed out, that will be the only viable alternative to film. Cheers, JRM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted October 31, 2009 Share #12 Posted October 31, 2009 Louis, the film version is so much better, digital skies like that always look 'wrong' to me and are often virtually impossible to avoid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted October 31, 2009 Author Share #13 Posted October 31, 2009 Louis, the film version is so much better, digital skies like that always look 'wrong' to me and are often virtually impossible to avoid. Thanks, James, vdb and liecaman. This shot really has altered my entire perspective towards film, I have to say. LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted December 28, 2009 Share #14 Posted December 28, 2009 Very pleasant shot(s), Louis. I'm afraid I'm at a bit of a loss here because both shots are of digital skies - one from the sensor in a digital camera and the other from a sensor in a (digital) scanner. So to say that one is definitely better than the other is simply to compare digital sensors isn't it? The only person (presumably) who's seen the true film version is Louis. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted December 29, 2009 Author Share #15 Posted December 29, 2009 Very pleasant shot(s), Louis. I'm afraid I'm at a bit of a loss here because both shots are of digital skies - one from the sensor in a digital camera and the other from a sensor in a (digital) scanner. So to say that one is definitely better than the other is simply to compare digital sensors isn't it? The only person (presumably) who's seen the true film version is Louis. Pete. Pete I think the point I am making is that there is a better representation of the sky to be scanned from a film frame than from the sensor in the M8. I am incidentally one of the world's greatest supporters of the sensor in the M8 but I was taken aback when I saw the results of scanning the film frame versus the digital capture. LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
George James Posted December 29, 2009 Share #16 Posted December 29, 2009 Louis, I tend to agree with you, the second version on film appeals to me more due to its tonal range. George Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted December 29, 2009 Share #17 Posted December 29, 2009 Thanks, James, vdb and liecaman. This shot really has altered my entire perspective towards film, I have to say. LouisB How was the film scanned, Louis? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted December 29, 2009 Share #18 Posted December 29, 2009 The only person (presumably) who's seen the true film version is Louis. The print that would have come with the processing is almost certainly to have been via a scan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted December 29, 2009 Author Share #19 Posted December 29, 2009 How was the film scanned, Louis? The film was scanned at source at Snappy Snaps when it was processed. I then processed the raw tiff that they produced (unusually for me, not very much). In the past when I owned a scanner I was never able to get as good a result with my own scanning as they do for me down at my branch of Snappy Snaps. Could be I did not own a particularly good scanner. I'm still suspicious of whether or not a home scanner can do as good a job as the source scan. Have toyed with the idea of a V700 which is at the top of my price range though... I never bother with prints. LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.